jgator Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I suppose PC doesn't support people honouring their treaties instead of breaking them. I said nothing about not honoring a treaty to defend there allies I just said they failed at it that's all, a least they did stand by there treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Don't count on it. Yes, don't count on it if IS does the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 It's one thing to publicly say you're going to honor a treaty, but I do hope that privately you're smacking IS upside the head. Not that it will do much good, mind you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 First off, just to be clear here: While everyone seems supportive of idea expressed but things like the moldavi doctrine, when PC actually puts it to use, its a bad thing. Am I right, or did I miss something?Secondly, we need to remember that its not an outsiders job to enforce an alliances charter, its the membership of that alliances job. Just like I don't bust your ghosts or attack members of, say, NpO that aren't on Blue, you can't enforce IS's raiding policy. As CG has declared war over a tech raid PC is rightfully defending IS. Your ignorance is painful. It is not Crimson Guard that declared war, but Internet Superheroes. You know, when they [OOC] hit the "declare war" buttons all at the same time.[/OOC] Hurrr. Durrr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 It's one thing to publicly say you're going to honor a treaty, but I do hope that privately you're smacking IS upside the head. Not that it will do much good, mind you.... Haven't seen PC really say they disagree with IS. Maybe they think this is a genuine move? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tron Paul Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 So...Mind saying how an alliance DoWing for the sake of defending CG constitutes something which invokes a defensive clause? Yes, because they only signed a defensive treaty with us, nothing more. Right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Whats with all this 'honor' garbage, it means nothing on here. Im all for being loyal to your allies but uh this idea that everybody should be Honorable to the max is a complete joke. Really looking forward to seeing your signature on something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Yes, because they only signed a defensive treaty with us, nothing more. Right. So you're saying that they'd be invoking an aggressive clause? Edit: Spelling Edited August 21, 2009 by Chron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Land of True Israel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Picking and choosing which treaty you wish to "honor" PC, very classy.. (Sarcasm) I hope you get what you deserve. Whats with all this 'honor' garbage, it means nothing on here. Im all for being loyal to your allies but uh this idea that everybody should be Honorable to the max is a complete joke. Honor means nothing only to those who are dishonorable by nature. Whether or not one feels it belongs here or not is irrelevant, the fact is some people are honorable people, where it is ingrained in the very fabric of their being, and where it comes as natural to them as breathing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) So you're saying that they'd be invoking an aggressive clause?Edit: Spelling Suddenly all the chips fall into place and the glorious truth is illuminated. Oh sweet justification! Edited August 21, 2009 by Virillus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The correct answer would be to cancel the treaty with IS, who have clearly shown themselves to be aggressive and a liability to your security. Backing up the sort of behaviour that IS are showing is the sort of bully-boy antics that were supposed to be left behind with the Hegemony. The Unjust Path rolls again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acca Dacca Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) The correct answer would be to cancel the treaty with IS, who have clearly shown themselves to be aggressive and a liability to your security. Backing up the sort of behaviour that IS are showing is the sort of bully-boy antics that were supposed to be left behind with the Hegemony.The Unjust Path rolls again? Cancelling a treaty is never the correct answer. A good friend bails you out of jail, A great friend is the one sitting next to you saying "That was fun!" IS are some funny guys/gals and they messed up, does that mean because of this mishap they should go down alone? Heck no. Edited August 21, 2009 by Acca Dacca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike717 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Cancelling a treaty is never the correct answer. A good friend bails you out of jail, A great friend is the one sitting next to you saying "That was fun!" IS are some funny guys/gals and they messed up, does that mean because of this mishap they should go down alone? Heck no. then again really great friends make sure you don't do something stupid enough to land you in jail either way this should be fun and exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm sure if PC canceled their treaty or left PWN, people would be calling them cowards. Sorta like what happened in this last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm sure if PC canceled their treaty or left PWN, people would be calling them cowards. Sorta like what happened in this last war. I actually somewhat agree with this. No matter what decision you make, people will always berate you for it. You learn to live with the people who love you and hate you. However, in this situation although I applaud Poison Clan's decision to defend their ally as that is an honourable thing to do, I think it is pathetic that they are selective about who they honour their treaties with and I doubt that they would have defended IS for this war had it not been against a 10-man alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I think PC is saying it will protect it's friends. What's wrong with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tequila Mockingbird Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Why would you defend an alliance full of rogers? You guys used to be cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The correct answer would be to cancel the treaty with IS, who have clearly shown themselves to be aggressive and a liability to your security. Backing up the sort of behaviour that IS are showing is the sort of bully-boy antics that were supposed to be left behind with the Hegemony.The Unjust Path rolls again? So lets say one of your allies screws up, you going to cancel on them? i though the gremlins were better than that. I actually somewhat agree with this. No matter what decision you make, people will always berate you for it. You learn to live with the people who love you and hate you.However, in this situation although I applaud Poison Clan's decision to defend their ally as that is an honourable thing to do, I think it is pathetic that they are selective about who they honour their treaties with and I doubt that they would have defended IS for this war had it not been against a 10-man alliance. We will honour treaties no matter what size alliance, also people inform me where PC hasnt honoured a treaty? Why would you defend an alliance full of rogers? You guys used to be cool. Because there allied to us. No matter how bad they screw up allies are allies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Honorable move. That said, I will love watching you get rolled if this escalates. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 We will honour treaties no matter what size alliance, also people inform me where PC hasnt honoured a treaty? Something about a non-aggression clause with TPF...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Something about a non-aggression clause with TPF...... Details, details... -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Something about a non-aggression clause with TPF...... Cancellation clauses to be specific. Edited August 21, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Something about a non-aggression clause with TPF...... I dont think we need a thread on that, There is many threads on it. Any others you can inform me of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Details, details... -Bama Alright, details. DT issued a DoW on TPF because of GR's DoW on TPF because TPF attacked Avalanche. DT launched one offensive war. PC activated a oA in a treaty with DT. So essentially, they attacked TPF while they had an NAP through treaty chaining and a optional pact... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Alright, details. DT issued a DoW on TPF because of GR's DoW on TPF because TPF attacked Avalanche. DT launched one offensive war. PC activated a oA in a treaty with DT. So essentially, they attacked TPF while they had an NAP through treaty chaining and a optional pact... Fran, I know, I was in TPF for most of the war. My comment was jokingly sarcastic, as in: PC: "We never break treaties" Fran: "Uhhh... You broke one 4 months ago" Me: "Pfft, those pesky details" -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.