Electron Sponge Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 This is a bold and brave move. Stand strong against the world, Poison Clan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't !@#$@#$ care. You sign a treaty you honor it or cancel it. You don't break it. That's fine, but it's your opinion and has nothing to do with the validity of Lord Brendan's earlier statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 That's fine, but it's your opinion and has nothing to do with the validity of Lord Brendan's earlier statement. Actually it does. He claims that they honor treaties with people they are actually friends with but they still broke a treaty. Just shows that they have no honor when it comes to agreements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Since im late to the this party i got some catching up to do Defence treaties are not supposed to make alliances think that they can be aggressive and use my weight to back up their bullying Works for NSO...and a few others you might know give 'em hell PC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Can anyone produce an example of PC not honoring a treaty other than the TPF NAP? I don't think there is one. Let's not get into that whole issue though. My point was that they'll honor their word given to friends, no matter what. edit for sentence structure Edited August 21, 2009 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm beginning to think any alliance who gets involved in this is a pretty dumb one. No one is coming out looking good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 To date PC has honored treaties that allow them to be on the curbstomp side in every war. Even if they had to go about it in very creative ways to enter on the Karma side against us last war after being solidly Hegemony during the past few wars. To my knowledge this will be the second time they truly faced a situation where they wouldn't be on the side with vastly superior numbers. Last time they waved the white flag without firing a shot. We will see what happens this time, but I'll be truly surprised if it escalates into widespread conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) Actually it does. He claims that they honor treaties with people they are actually friends with but they still broke a treaty. Just shows that they have no honor when it comes to agreements. Yes, they "broke" a treaty with people they're not friends with. Lord Brendan never said that they wouldn't legitimately cancel treaties with people they're not friends with, so you're not actually refuting his statement. Edited August 21, 2009 by Quiziotle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yes, they "broke" a treaty with people they're not friends with. Lord Brendan never said that they wouldn't legitimately cancel treaties with people they're not friends with, so you're not actually refuting his statement. *sigh* breaking a treaty is not a legitimate way to cancel a treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) If one of my allies declared war for no reason, without consulting me about it, and then expected me to bail them out when they got counter-attacked, yes I would want to cancel an MDP that would oblige me to do so. Defence treaties are not supposed to make alliances think that they can be aggressive and use my weight to back up their bullying and I wouldn't want a treaty with an alliance like that anyway. I would attempt to broker a diplomatic resolution to the issue instead of letting the friend simply get themselves killed – in this case, get IS to pay the reps for their unprovoked attack.Of course none of my allies would do such a thing in the first place, so the point is rather moot. pateince my friend? I am so freaking over joyed. I so look forward to the near future when there is a world without the scum called PC in it. I only pray I can somehow find a way to assist in PC's utter destruction.Die PC die! Your hate keeps me in CN To date PC has honored treaties that allow them to be on the curbstomp side in every war.Even if they had to go about it in very creative ways to enter on the Karma side against us last war after being solidly Hegemony during the past few wars. To my knowledge this will be the second time they truly faced a situation where they wouldn't be on the side with vastly superior numbers. Last time they waved the white flag without firing a shot. We will see what happens this time, but I'll be truly surprised if it escalates into widespread conflict. Want me to remind you when Hegemony canceled on us, and tired to roll us? Go ask your leaders on your plan. Also in the Karma war all treaties were with Karma side (FOK, Umbrella, DT) Edited August 21, 2009 by mushi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I'm beginning to think any alliance who gets involved in this is a pretty dumb one. No one is coming out looking good. Shhh ES, don't let them know that the bystanders are having all the fun here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 You can talk about the PC-TPF NAP all day (and most of you have ). What I'm trying to say is that I really don't see Poison Clan as an alliance that would ever bail on a friend. That's all, I never mentioned anything about honour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yes, they "broke" a treaty with people they're not friends with. Lord Brendan never said that they wouldn't legitimately cancel treaties with people they're not friends with, so you're not actually refuting his statement. Doesn't matter if you're friends, or enemies or somewhere in between. You don't break treaties. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I really didnt know you guys honor treaties...Wow what a improvement! This line is getting overused. Good God. I am so freaking over joyed. I so look forward to the near future when there is a world without the scum called PC in it. I only pray I can somehow find a way to assist in PC's utter destruction.Die PC die! Keep dreaming, bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 PC honoring treaties? Not in my CN. Hopefully this can be resolved soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kswiss2783 Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Always classy PC... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yes, they "broke" a treaty with people they're not friends with. Lord Brendan never said that they wouldn't legitimately cancel treaties with people they're not friends with, so you're not actually refuting his statement. Did I ever say my purpose was to refute his statement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Their treaty with IS does not require them to provide military backup for an offensive war, so breaking treaties or not is not really the issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Their treaty with IS does not require them to provide military backup for an offensive war, so breaking treaties or not is not really the issue here. Section 1. In the event of an attack upon any signatory, all other signatory alliances are required to provide assistance to the best of their ability, by all means available. Such assistance is mandatory, except in the case of conflicting treaties. If we say its aggressive action, people are going to say its not, it was a tech raid, and PC are cowards for not honouring treaties. You see where we are coming from? If you think PC supports IS actions, i'll gladly inform you we dont, But allies are allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 If you think PC supports IS actions, i'll gladly inform you we dont, But allies are allies. Good. Now get on with LSF on helping them come to a peace deal. Believe me, I know really well where you're coming from; only my ally didn't get the chance yours is getting to fix the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 *sigh*breaking a treaty is not a legitimate way to cancel a treaty. By CN terms, you are correct. However, by CN terms, defending a small alliance for no reason is not a legitimate way to start a war. Its funny how stupid our little code is on Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 By CN terms, you are correct. However, by CN terms, defending a small alliance for no reason is not a legitimate way to start a war. Its funny how stupid our little code is on Bob. In any terms I am correct a treaty is a contract and I would like you to show me any context where breaking the terms of a contract is considered a legitimate means of canceling it. As far as the latter part of your statement I disagree and always have. Defending someone from an unjust attack is a legitimate reason to go to war and I know many people in CN who agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I know many people in CN who agree with that. many of whom suppor the act of curbstomping a defensless alliance for the tech and lulz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Section 1. In the event of an attack upon any signatory, all other signatory alliances are required to provide assistance to the best of their ability, by all means available. Such assistance is mandatory, except in the case of conflicting treaties. If we say its aggressive action, people are going to say its not, it was a tech raid, and PC are cowards for not honouring treaties. You see where we are coming from? If you think PC supports IS actions, i'll gladly inform you we dont, But allies are allies. Excellent, an answer to my question of 6 pages back. This is good to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 many of whom suppor the act of curbstomping a defensless alliance for the tech and lulz. People that think defending an alliance from an unjust attack are the same people that support attacking an alliance for the lulz? I think I am missing your point. 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.