Jason8 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 And Karma was aggressively attacking NPO not defending Ordo Verde. Chaining treaties, my good sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan III Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Our friends. As in like, people we know well and love (and are allied to via treaty). Is this an unfamiliar concept to you?Thanks for the kind words, though. I don't recall ever saying anything this hateful toward you. I meant hit the dumb IS leaders for starting this. Never, ever would I have meant that you are stupid/dumb. If that came out like that sorry not what I meant. Bold: Well from how I played CN yes it is. I never side with an alliance who amoral decisions like what IS did. Ivan III. Why must you be hating in this very RAD thread. And you are?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druss the Legend Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I meant hit the dumb IS leaders for starting this. Never, ever would I have meant that you are stupid/dumb. If that came out like that sorry not what I meant.Bold: Well from how I played CN yes it is. I never side with an alliance who amoral decisions like what IS did. And you are?..... I could ask the same question to you, so I will. Who are you? And now to answer your question, I am Druss, and I'm a pretty RAD guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 And Karma was aggressively attacking NPO not defending Ordo Verde. except for OV and allies had, like, treaties that obligated (or optionated) defense, bro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) We're prepared to fight for our allies, who we support 100%. Otherwise we wouldn't have signed the treaty. Your charter is who you are, you should never put a treaty above your charter when they conflict. An alliance is a soulless entity without a treaty charter they respect. Edited August 22, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxonThePious Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) When a mongrel horde of alliances issue a bunch of DoS's it's supporting friends. When a pink alliance issues a DoS it's an unnecessary escalation Edited August 22, 2009 by JaxonThePious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Your charter is who you are, you should never put a treaty above your charter when they conflict. An alliance is a soulless entity without a treaty charter they respect. Dude. We would be going to war because an ally would be getting aggressively attacked. See the problem there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 When a mongrel horde of alliances issue a bunch of DoS's it's supporting friends. When a pink alliance issues a DoS it's an unnecessary escalation Now, now...you are actually using *logic* here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Why suspend the treaty? It was signed so we had a solid reason for helping out our friends when they needed it. PWN isn't one of those treaties that people back out of when they might possibly become activated. RAD doesn't sign those treaties, unlike some other alliances.An allies' true colors come out when war is on the horizon. Allies true colours? We can all see IS true colours, now in a way you should be recommended for standing by your allies. But when your so called allies put you in the firing line for absolutely no sane reason maybe its time to review that so called ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King MyLife Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 you fail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Dude. We would be going to war because an ally would be getting aggressively attacked.See the problem there? No especially since they started it by aggressively attacking someone in the first point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=66920 Go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 you fail! I love you mylife :awesome: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gondor Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I must admit it is nice to see RAD standing up for IS because they are allies. It shows guts which are rarely seen to publicly stand by a rather unpopular alliance. Still I disagree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=66920Go away. Peace in our time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Dude. We would be going to war because an ally would be getting aggressively attacked.See the problem there? Yes, your allies mean more to you than your charter and members. It is a problem. Its over now, congrats on peace and being big enough to finally admit your guilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason8 Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Its over now, congrats on peace and being big enough to finally admit your guilt. Wrong thread, we're not IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan III Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Why suspend the treaty? It was signed so we had a solid reason for helping out our friends when they needed it. PWN isn't one of those treaties that people back out of when they might possibly become activated. RAD doesn't sign those treaties, unlike some other alliances.An allies' true colors come out when war is on the horizon. First off, do you have an ODP or an AP? If you have an ODP good for you, you could have chosen to be optional by this and not get into it. Italics: If that was a shot at TGE I will get personal with you. Bold: That is very true. You see if they have weird leaders or good strong ones with good minds and know what's right and wrong (Don't you dare try to give me that crap about right and wrong are a person's point of view). treaties should be made by things and views that both alliances have in commen. If IS said that they believe in the same policies that NPO had would you have made a treaty with them? If they said they love trees and don't kill flies would you make a treaty with them? I would rather go with the tree loving alliance because they like peace over war, and by the fly part, that would mean that they don't like creating wars and wouldn't start one nor get into one unless they had to. You guys are the one's who don't like to get into wars (From what I have seen) and I am glad for that, but you guys have made two wrong choices over the past week and I am starting to wonder what you guys are thinking. I understand that you want to back-up your allies by this treaty but you should also look at what they are doing before getting into this. I also understand that we have opposite views on this so that's why I am here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Wrong thread, we're not IS. sorry [ooc] its nearly 4am[ooc] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 First off, do you have an ODP or an AP?If you have an ODP good for you, you could have chosen to be optional by this and not get into it. So, you'd rather cancel on an alliance than stand by them in their time of need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan III Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I could ask the same question to you, so I will.Who are you? And now to answer your question, I am Druss, and I'm a pretty RAD guy Using Ad Hominem and Tu Quoque, not good on your part. But to amuse you: I am Ivan III. Former MoD for ACF, Creator of the former alliance TKS (The Kievan State), fought in GW1, 2 and part of 3. Current citizen of TGE and proud of it. So, you'd rather cancel on an alliance than stand by them in their time of need. You did fully read my post right? I said suspend, not cancel. But if an alliance has worse morals then this, yes, I would cancel. And IS is not in a "Time of Need". IS is getting what they deserve. Look at their charter and see what it says for the tech raiding part. Tell me, what does that tell you? From what I understand, this is not a tech raid. This is an unhonorable war since there was no DoW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaxonThePious Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 Ivan III was !@#$tier than Ivan IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan III Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Ivan III was !@#$tier than Ivan IV You want to get personal? PM me for this is not the time nor place. [ooc]And brush up on your history for petes sake! Ivan IV was named Ivan the Terible for a reason! and Ivan III was more liberal so why are you doing this? [/ooc] I also want to say that I am glad things worked out and now this topic can be closed I am happy about that. Edited August 22, 2009 by Ivan III Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 im totally not trying to e-lawyer here, but it wasn't their member who raided, so technically that doesn't really apply. It doesn't, the original point that was brought up by alterego is that RAD was showing more willingness to defend another alliance then they would to their own members which is how that section in the charter was brought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted August 22, 2009 Report Share Posted August 22, 2009 I was expecting RAD DoS before diplomatic solution was achieved, I guess better late than never ;p 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.