erikz Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Give me some examples, I'm having trouble imagining the situation. We talking similar to say, the NpO-FIST war? If I was VE in that situation I would have canceled on NpO. FIST was technically in the wrong too, but Polar brought it to a whole new level by declaring on an ally's ally.I didn't really mean my statement in the sense of two allies fighting 1v1, but that in a large global war, all your allies should be on the same side. Otherwise, what's the point? Your treaty is worthless if you never get to honor it. Neutrality betrays both sides. Your stance seems to be that Friendship -> Treaty. I don't necessarily agree. There are several alliances that I consider myself friendly with and yet I would never consider a treaty with them; it would be illogical for both of us. edit: goddamnit Delta, you've said everything I wanted to and made it look better, and you did it in less time In a global war (opposed to a 1on1) you can help one of your allies without even attacking the other, so yeah, kind of a useless scenario there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimmerwald1915 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 In a global war (opposed to a 1on1) you can help one of your allies without even attacking the other, so yeah, kind of a useless scenario there. You're still choosing one side over another, and thus to help your allies on one side while ignoring those on the other. AFAIK, no alliance has ever fought on both sides of a global war (this should happen more often, as the web would implode). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 You're still choosing one side over another, and thus to help your allies on one side while ignoring those on the other. AFAIK, no alliance has ever fought on both sides of a global war (this should happen more often, as the web would implode). True, Still, that only happens in good faith and after talks between the alliances. Also; it doesn't need you to cancel either of the treaties (well, there are countless scenario's of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 In a global war (opposed to a 1on1) you can help one of your allies without even attacking the other, so yeah, kind of a useless scenario there. But you can only help one of them. ODN did not directly attack any of their allies, but they still made a choice between two sides. Their allies on the Karma side were thankful and their Hegemony allies became bitter (as you can see in this thread ). But if they had not chosen either side, then they'd be pissing off all of their allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 But if they had not chosen either side, then they'd be pissing off all of their allies. Indeed, hence for ODN neutrality was not an option....and it was a decision made before anyone knew how the Karma war was going to kick off in terms of sides, a decision that was made before others decided to not honor their own obligations (something only ODN seems to get flak for). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 You're still choosing one side over another, and thus to help your allies on one side while ignoring those on the other. AFAIK, no alliance has ever fought on both sides of a global war (this should happen more often, as the web would implode). Yes, I tend to agree. Ironically it was due to ODN cancelling a treaty that Invicta never did that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 You're still choosing one side over another, and thus to help your allies on one side while ignoring those on the other. In case of conflicting treaties there is no other choice as to choose one side over another. And if so you have to choose the side you think is right. Even friends and allies can make mistakes. MHA had to face such a difficult decision last war. (just like for instance ODN, NPO and others in past wars) NPO and NATO two of our oldest friends and allies were on Hegemony side while most of our other allies were clearly standing on the other side. This did hurt but we could not agree with the CB and felt we were not informed about our allies actions while our treaty made information obligatorily. I know some people think alliances make this decision out of convenience because often they join the largest side. I can only hope that those who deal with us know better. But it hurts when your allies are on different sides of a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joracy Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Argent isn't butthurt. They're just open and honest. That is how Argent rolls, they're just stating their opinion, doesn't mean they're actually upset over it. Also, Argent isn't the only one who views PIATs as a stepping stone. TOOL has the exact same policy. PIATs actually do matter to some people. It is only worthless if the parties signing it think it is worthless. On the history thing, you don't leave behind your past until you've proven you've changed. ODN hasn't really done that yet in the view of people's minds. The opinion will change when actions are taken, not words spoken. That being said, good luck to ODN in this interesting move. Argent Thats exactly how we view PIATs. But we've had a PIAT with Argent for a while now, and quite frankly, it's not going anywhere. Hence, it's not really a stepping stone is it? USN and MHA are both age old naps/ToF's that are very unlikely to lead to anything. The Invicta PIAT is also very unlikely to lead to a higher level treaty. Hence, they are not stepping stones to a higher treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 The fact that we made a decision prior to the war and prior to the Coward coalition speaks volumes of our efforts to be on the ball at the time but yeah i suppose that does not amtter to the haters. They weren't cowards. They were just a tad slower (and not all that much) than the rest of the courageous bandwagoneers who wanted to be on the right side of history not risk losing a war. And in the end they did the right thing and fought with valor with some paying a heavy price. The criticism is not whether you picked the correct side. After all as long as you are on the winning side the peanut gallery will probably back your decision. Or whether you were too cowardly to fight for that matter. Just whether you are capable of not only standing with an ally during the good times but whether you will take risks for them during the bad times. Even declaring neutrality is perfectly honorable if you have treaties on both sides. Unlike puntkicking a long time treaty partner so you can squeeze yourself in to the win column. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Unless your treaty specifically allows for you to declare neutrality under certain circumstances, then declaring neutrality is breaking that treaty. I am more likely to sign with someone who upholds half his treaties than someone who upholds none of them. Of course, both are disadvantaged to someone who upholds all treaties which is why it's important to pay attention to what you sign and with whom. If you determine that there is not a reason for you to have a treaty you currently possess, then canceling it is the right move. Furthermore, canceling a treaty when there is no pressing need to is always the right time to do it. Realistically, there is absolutely no reasonable reason to be upset with this announcement that I can discern. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 They weren't cowards. They were just a tad slower (and not all that much) than the rest of the courageous bandwagoneers who wanted to be on the right side of history not risk losing a war. And in the end they did the right thing and fought with valor with some paying a heavy price.The criticism is not whether you picked the correct side. After all as long as you are on the winning side the peanut gallery will probably back your decision. Or whether you were too cowardly to fight for that matter. Just whether you are capable of not only standing with an ally during the good times but whether you will take risks for them during the bad times. Even declaring neutrality is perfectly honorable if you have treaties on both sides. Unlike puntkicking a long time treaty partner so you can squeeze yourself in to the win column. Truly wasn't much bandwagoning on the Karma side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Logical move. Good job ODN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyNail Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 ODN, i'm happy for you, and i'm gonna let you finish this announcement but I just have to say that Argent has the best announcements ever! Also, sad but understandable. If a relationship isn't going anywhere on both sides then it just makes sense to cut your losses and maybe one day things will be different. Good luck either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Well done, gentlemen. Thanks man, I knew we were doing something right Invicat Hmm, Is that like a purple cat? I WANT ONE. Excellent job, Invicta. They're now more likely to defend you than they were before. I love you Chim <3 I can't decide who to congratulate here Invicta, obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 but then again you are obviously far more honorable than any ODN member right Boris?? Right. Lines have been drawn with Invicta - canceling PIATs is the new CB. OH NO, Should I get my warshovel? I assume they have a plan and that for ODN is huge step forward. I Lol'ed the ODN mishap in the NoCB war was long ago, ODN has made many changes since then and it is hardly the same alliance, judging their current form on a previous one is plain ignorant.. Well, this is funny, If a bit contrdictory, since I often see you judging other alliances for percieved wrongs from the years past. I have no doubt in my mind that the ODN would commit itself fully to our defense if we were to come under attack Lol, good luck with that. Not everyone is going to like being rejected, it is very few of us that can enjoy a good solid rejection. Mmmmm......... I'm enjoying it This mass treaty announcement at least shows that we, as an alliance, now have some balls. I'm sorry, but...BAHHAHAAHHAA. lolThisIsComingFromAMemberOfTheCowardCoalition.? Come now, MCXA was one of the most honorable alliances in the Karma war, hit me up sometime if you want to talk about it HG, I miss you =(. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 I can see ODN has filled their quota on pages for an announcement, nonetheless canceling some PIAT's. Good luck to all involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Unless your treaty specifically allows for you to declare neutrality under certain circumstances, then declaring neutrality is breaking that treaty. I am more likely to sign with someone who upholds half his treaties than someone who upholds none of them. Most MDoAP's have nonchaining clauses, and most wars are declared in chaining situations. It is therefore quite possible to be put into a situation where 2 of your MDoAP partners are at war with one another, and your technical obligation is oDP of the attacked party and oA with the attacking party. But something that you would have with BOTH is a binding NAP, which is usually part of every treaty, certainly all MDP+ treaties. So you would have to declare neutrality in that situation, or cancel one of the treaties and then act. I've never really had a particular problem with DoN's, (esp since they are sometimes the only choice in which you can honor all agreements), but I don't hold alliances that sign with all sides of the web deliberately in order to be able to do this in real high regard. Signing with anyone and everyone so that you can always jump in on the winning side or stay neutral is pretty lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Most MDoAP's have nonchaining clauses, and most wars are declared in chaining situations. It is therefore quite possible to be put into a situation where 2 of your MDoAP partners are at war with one another, and your technical obligation is oDP of the attacked party and oA with the attacking party. But something that you would have with BOTH is a binding NAP, which is usually part of every treaty, certainly all MDP+ treaties. So you would have to declare neutrality in that situation, or cancel one of the treaties and then act.I've never really had a particular problem with DoN's, (esp since they are sometimes the only choice in which you can honor all agreements), but I don't hold alliances that sign with all sides of the web deliberately in order to be able to do this in real high regard. Signing with anyone and everyone so that you can always jump in on the winning side or stay neutral is pretty lame. "Unless your treaty specifically allows for you to declare neutrality under certain circumstances." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted September 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Scythegfx, I really appreciate the time you took to respond to the queries in ODN's thread, but at the expense of coming off as redundant and foolish as you did, was it really worth it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joracy Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 (edited) They weren't cowards. They were just a tad slower (and not all that much) than the rest of the courageous bandwagoneers who wanted to be on the right side of history not risk losing a war. And in the end they did the right thing and fought with valor with some paying a heavy price.The criticism is not whether you picked the correct side. After all as long as you are on the winning side the peanut gallery will probably back your decision. Or whether you were too cowardly to fight for that matter. Just whether you are capable of not only standing with an ally during the good times but whether you will take risks for them during the bad times. Even declaring neutrality is perfectly honorable if you have treaties on both sides. Unlike puntkicking a long time treaty partner so you can squeeze yourself in to the win column. Because like, I am TOTALLY sure you would not be sitting here yelling at us for dodging the war and saving our pixels had we not gotten involved at all. OH WAIT, people actually bring up the bloody dove war, where we did just that, declare neutrality with treaty partners on both sides, after our allies directly asked us to!. You would be sitting right here in this thread yelling at us for ditching all of our allies and not taking part in the war. Our allies got in a war. We looked at what was going on and made our stand on the anti-hegemony side. Winning or losing was inconsequential, we chose the side we thought was right. ODN, i'm happy for you, and i'm gonna let you finish this announcement but I just have to say that Argent has the best announcements ever!Also, sad but understandable. If a relationship isn't going anywhere on both sides then it just makes sense to cut your losses and maybe one day things will be different. Good luck either way. I may or may not hate you Edited September 25, 2009 by joracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 I can respect assertiveness, no matter which 'side' it comes from. Congratulations on not only cleaning up your treaties, but also on picking a direction & sticking to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Right. In your mind maybe but i have been around long enough to have a different opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soccerbum Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*. It's funny how sometimes you can dig a hole for yourself, and for some reason, you just can't stop digging. It was a PIAT that we canceled, yet you are acting as if we had the most stellar relationship ever. I've never seen someone quote so many people yet make so few points. If you're going to actually say something worth reading, at least warn us prior to posting all those quote tags. I would've just skipped over it to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 Who says a war has to be two sided? Yes that is what we see now in terms of wars, but take this for example if you have alliances ABCDEF and G. Say that C is allied to ABE and F. If DE and F war on AB than C has the choice of canselling their treaty with one side and fighting the other, declairing neutrality, but why couldn't C honor both treaties, attack DF for attacking their allies A and B. Offer assistants in the peace talks, and help the their allies on the loosing side. They have not voilated there treaties so long as there isn't a clause claiming it to be weighed over another. They remained loyal to both sides, assisted in the defense from outside forces, and they mutually assisted their fallen allie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted September 25, 2009 Report Share Posted September 25, 2009 It's funny how sometimes you can dig a hole for yourself, and for some reason, you just can't stop digging. It was a PIAT that we canceled, yet you are acting as if we had the most stellar relationship ever. I've never seen someone quote so many people yet make so few points. If you're going to actually say something worth reading, at least warn us prior to posting all those quote tags. I would've just skipped over it to begin with. Well, it wasn't always a PIAT. There's a good reason it's no longer so, and a reason why it wasn't cancelled. And, well, after that you can't really blame some people for being a little sore. And if you don't care for what he's saying, you could have easily determined this by the first response or so. OOC: And there's always that shiny ignore button too. 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.