Turetel Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I wish I could have gotten in a few rants about overlapping treaties being pointless, but I guess I'll have to just say something about MADPs being a really bad idea. I thought everyone had seen how badly that goes; I guess this is the beginning of the next Hegemony.o/ our CDT overlords! That means I get to look forward to massive strength increases (or I suppose massive decreases in everyone elses alliance)! Or at the very least, tense political ties to every other alliance in the Cyberverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selindryl Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 UCN Congrats guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Aren't all these alliances in CDT? Folks, i give you Bob's most worthless and redundant treaty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrPayne Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Congratz to this new wicked awsome grouping of great alliance or [WAGoGA] I can't for the civil war i call i win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Folks, i give you Bob's most worthless and redundant treaty Oh hai thar troll squad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altheus Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Great Treaty, Great Alliances, Great Friends, Great Everything really! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borimir Resurrected Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Folks, i give you Bob's most worthless and redundant treaty wickedj, I give you: To those saying "Overlapping treaties, I'm going to take this chance to show how much I hate CDT!", two things.1. This is a chaining MADP. A good deal more significant, paper wise, than a non-chaining MDoAP. 2. This was signed a good while ago, before Wolfpack was admitted into CDT. It was only the flag and a tad of laziness that kept it from being announced till now. So when you think about it, this is a perfectly legitimate, non-overlapping treaty. For those that dislike CDT, how bout you start a new thread about how much the bloc sucks instead of cluttering this one with poorly constructed insults. Really, its painfully obvious that your post has absolutely nothing to do with the treaty itself. You dislike CDT and will leap at any chance to insult it or it's members. Semi OOC: I was quite serious about the other thread. If you want to bash CDT, my best advice to you is to make a new thread in OWRP or WA on that very topic. All you haters can talk about Cora and Alt's OOC ties, how evil Purqua is, how dumb all CDT alliances are, whatever you want. You're only derailing this thread and to a much larger extent, the CDT announcement. This is directed at not just wickedj, but Freelancer, that fellow with the red text, and all the others with an axe to grind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlimonkey Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 o/ Snugglus Lupus o/ Trolls, you make life worth living Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 o/ UCN o/ Wolfpack More blood please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 I'll be watching this with great interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 For those saying "trolls" two advices, first read this guide, specifically this part: 8. Do not call someone a troll merely for having a different opinion than the thread creator. Know the definition before you begin pointing fingers. Second, OCC advice: Since you're already mentioning trolling, might want to add a "Do not ever use the word trolling in a discussion, especially IC - it's against the rules." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 How is this a MADP? The other signatories can only initiate offensive warfare if you agree to it; that makes the aggression part optional. I suppose you're just trying to compete with UPN and Invicta with redundant treaties of your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turetel Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 How is this a MADP? The other signatories can only initiate offensive warfare if you agree to it; that makes the aggression part optional.I suppose you're just trying to compete with UPN and Invicta with redundant treaties of your own. The aggression part is that it requires the approval of all members before it can start, and then all members must agree to permit a specific member to not go through the aggressive action. I hope I didn't jumble the wording too badly. We can only hope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlimonkey Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 What the treaty basically means is that if one of us goes to war, we all do. The voting upon aggression is so that everyone is prepared and willing to fight. It's an "all or nothing" treaty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 (edited) How is this a MADP? The other signatories can only initiate offensive warfare if you agree to it; that makes the aggression part optional.I suppose you're just trying to compete with UPN and Invicta with redundant treaties of your own. For clarification here is the aggression one more time. An aggressive war cannot be declared by any one signatory without unanimous approval by all signatories. Once an aggressive war has been approved and declared, all signatories are required to participate. However, a signatory may refrain from engaging in aggressive acts with the consent of all remaining signatories. As for the "No one can attack without permission of the other signatories" that is a precaution to prevent us from being dragged in by rash decisions made from anger or the like. If anything you could say it is a hybrid between several treaty types and we are calling it a MADP so it is easier to explain. Though you don't have to like it since it doesn't involve you in the least. With that said I am surprised there hasn't been any comments made on the eternal NAP on the bottom ha ha. Edited September 12, 2009 by darkfox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lartize Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 For those saying "trolls" two advices, first read this guide, specifically this part:8. Do not call someone a troll merely for having a different opinion than the thread creator. Know the definition before you begin pointing fingers. Second, OCC advice: QUOTE (Heft @ Sep 10 2009, 01:31 AM) *Since you're already mentioning trolling, might want to add a "Do not ever use the word trolling in a discussion, especially IC - it's against the rules." Well maybe it would have never been said, if people weren't you know.. actively trolling Although I'm not sure what you would call the sole purpose of making a post without anything to add to the conversation, besides starting an argument with someone.. Maybe since it isn't trolling you could help us come up with a new word for it? K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Taylor Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 With that said I am surprised there hasn't been any comments made on the eternal NAP on the bottom ha ha. Truth be told, I couldn't make it to the end; I kept laughing at how silly a three-member bloc is, and how funny it would be to see all three members agree to let one member go to war by themselves. The eternal NAP thing is actually kind of interesting, though; silly, but not as self-hog-tieing as other forms of eternal treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 For clarification here is the aggression one more time.As for the "No one can attack without permission of the other signatories" that is a precaution to prevent us from being dragged in by rash decisions made from anger or the like. If anything you could say it is a hybrid between several treaty types and we are calling it a MADP so it is easier to explain. Though you don't have to like it since it doesn't involve you in the least. But that's the whole point of a MADP. For it to be a Mandatory Aggression treaty, there has to be at least some situation in which you could be forced to join an aggressive war, regardless of your vote on said war. This treaty is a MDoAP: the defense is mandatory and aggressive wars can only occur if all signatories choose to approve them. Some examples of real MADPs: Article IIWe pledge mutual defense AND aggression in times of conflict, doing so with the utmost trust in each others motives and reasoning. We live as one, and fight as one. In the event that one member alliance requires assistance in an aggressive war against a Non-AZTEC Alliance, all Patrons are required to assist by means of political, financial, and military aid. Article V. The Rambo Part.E. Is somebody prank calling you? Did their dog crap on your lawn? We’ll help you beat them up if you want. Do you see the difference? None of the above requires approval by the other signatories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 But that's the whole point of a MADP. For it to be a Mandatory Aggression treaty, there has to be at least some situation in which you could be forced to join an aggressive war, regardless of your vote on said war. This treaty is a MDoAP: the defense is mandatory and aggressive wars can only occur if all signatories choose to approve them.Some examples of real MADPs: Do you see the difference? None of the above requires approval by the other signatories. The idea is that they will all commit to an aggressive act together. E-lawyer it however you want, but that's the reasoning behind terming this an MADP. An MADP with a little sense behind it, if you will. And if we're going to e-lawyer, the last example sounds like an oA clause-by your logic-to me (we'll help you if you want). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 The idea is that they will all commit to an aggressive act together. E-lawyer it however you want, but that's the reasoning behind terming this an MADP. An MADP with a little sense behind it, if you will. And if we're going to e-lawyer, the last example sounds like an oA clause-by your logic-to me (we'll help you if you want). Perhaps BLEU was a bad example, but it reads "we'll help you if you want" not "we'll help you if we want to", which is what this treaty says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Perhaps BLEU was a bad example, but it reads "we'll help you if you want" not "we'll help you if we want to", which is what this treaty says. Actually, this treaty says "We'll all ride together as long as we all agree." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Actually, this treaty says "We'll all ride together as long as we all agree." Whereas a MADP treaty is simply "We'll all ride together". There's nothing wrong with MDoAPs, just call the treaty what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Aren't you in CDT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Aren't you in CDT? To repeat what's been said a hundred times: CDT = non-chaining MDoAP BFF = chaining MADP Also, this was already in the oven before Wolfpack was in CDT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Whereas a MADP treaty is simply "We'll all ride together".There's nothing wrong with MDoAPs, just call the treaty what it is. MDOAPs generally don't require consent from your treaty partners before launching aggressive wars either. 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.