Jump to content

TOP/OBR Announcement


Recommended Posts

This line of reasoning has always amused me.

When MK, Fark, etc... chant "Friends > Infra" and back them to the hilt, this becomes "Honor."

When Valhalla ran around extorting, intimidating, and bullying the weak. NPO also said "Friends > Infra," and became villains as a result.

Please tell me that you can see the difference between the two.

I would be rather surprised, if someone like yourself who tries to portray himself with an aura of intelligence, could not see the difference between upholding your promises, and condoning another alliance's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 209
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gentle Persons

As I contemplate the response to the announcement I am struck by some interesting dichotomies of views.

There are those who support our treaty and those who choose to be disappointed by it, this is normal and always the case. The oddity is that some very good people have issue with our decision yet support the friends over pixels meme. There are some friends of our Order who have congregated in TOP it is not surprising thus we choose to formalize our friendship with these good leaders. Yet I see concern that we have a clause clearly stating that we will not support aggressive actions by our treaty partner nor support dishonourable actions by a treaty partner. This too has been subject of critique. I wonder which should we choose to believe. There is nothing antithetical about having a friend yet not supporting all their actions. I find it particularly amusing reviewing the treaty web and finding alliances who's styles are radically different and yet remain friends. I doubt that all that occurs is absolutely approved by both sides yet friendship reasonably remains.

Why ODP? Because we do not support aggressive actions against other alliances for the fun of it. We also have watched as MDP after MDP has been cancelled with perfectly legitimate reasons and within reasonable cancellation time but cancelled none the less. These by some of the friends over pixels crowd. So I ask if you only sign with friends and will support them to the end of the world how exactly does the cancellation of a treaty become reasonable in the context of friends over pixels.We actually believe that friends may have differences of style and approach so we have agreed that between the Two Orders that there may be times when the actions may require one of us to clearly express our disagreement by not supporting military action. No hypocritical cancellation just before war or worse as we have noted many, many times cancellation after war.

We previously found ourselves in our own treaty web with our greater commitment to a large number of good alliances through the WdC at odds with our CSN with our first friends in GR. This left our integrity at odds with itself. That is an unacceptable turn caused by true belief in both treaties. This situation has been removed with the removal sadly of the WdC yet makes our decisions clear and unequivocal. We listened to the criticism of our previous WdC.

If one intends to actually honour ones commitments to a treaty partner frankly nothing more than an ODP should be required for the E-lawyers and nothing further should be required by an alliance to maintain the integrity of ones word.

I am I admit also a little startled that some who have chosen to see the worst in this treaty have not made the effort to engage us in diplomacy themselves. There are good people in every alliance and good alliances aplenty. I have maintained diplomatic outposts with many good alliances yet few have taken the opportunity to query our desire or interest in diplomatic formalization of relations after the cancellation of the WdC. It is hardly surprising that some like GR and TOP who actually showed us interest and friendship took the time and effort to craft formal relations. We are in fact open to those who choose to extend the hand of friendship. We are not actively seeking to jump into any specific bloc as should be clear from our only two treaties but its is interesting to be critiqued by others for honouring friendship offered by those who have not yet extended the same hand. Perhaps we have been quiet but it is easier to extend a hand when one is offered in return.

Lastly it is suggested that this is not merely a treaty and that is also true. A treaty should not just be a pretty , flowery worded piece of paper it should reflect ones vales. Just as we issued a terms of combat before hostilities to the public and our adversary so our values might be known and tested so we believe that our values should be known in advance by our treaty partner and OWF so we may be tested.

To those who have complimented this choice we appreciate that for those who have in their posts expressed what they believe to be justified concerns we have listened and appreciate that you are offering food for thought to the best interests of both our Orders. We grow we learn, we do not want to have treaties that merely reflect the desire to be allied. It is best to have friends who tell you how you have room to grow and to learn. I hope that those who seek our improvement take the chance to tell us in friendship and integrity how they believe they can help us attain that higher level.

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentle Persons

Post

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

I love you guys more than ever. An ODP is plenty to support a legitimate cause with a friend. People need to realize that an ODP with these guys can be so much more than any MDP around.

A legitimate cause does not even need a treaty to be supported, but it helps to make it official for all those e-lawyers on Planet Bob who think that support without a treaty would be bandwagoning.

An alliance of honor with an ODP>alliances supporting each other no matter what the other does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lately it was shown when OBR stood with GR during the Karma War. They believed their actions just and thus enacted the writ.

So this one time OBR joins their ally a week late and for 6 days in a winning war earns them a reputation of being an alliance that will always stand by their allies with "all they have"? Three years of nothing mixed with intermittent bouts of irrelevant verbosity, one treaty cancellation on GR on the eve of the NoCB war (a losing war), and 6 days of faking it during the Karma war (a winning war) is apparently the measure of honour and trust around here.

This line of reasoning has always amused me.

When MK, Fark, etc... chant "Friends > Infra" and back them to the hilt, this becomes "Honor."

When Valhalla ran around extorting, intimidating, and bullying the weak. NPO also said "Friends > Infra," and became villains as a result.

Please tell me that you can see the difference between the two.

Yeah, one actually happened and the other didn't. The NPO never went around saying "Friends > Infra" because they weren't ever in a situation where they had to choose between the two. At least not until the Karma war, when they didn't have any friends anyway.

But the difference between those two examples is irrelevant. MK earned its reputation for defending their friends, and Valhalla and the NPO earned their reputation for bullying and extortion. OBR has not earned their reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped reading here... I can't think of a less appropriate treaty. In my long dealings with the OBR, I always found their FA department to make rational carefully measured decisions. Not sure what happened there.

Its quite simple, really -- they made a rational, carefully measured decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it's written or just an unsaid entity within the treaty (which is the case in almost every treaty) such as the coward coalition during the Karma War when people were pissed off at NPO's actions and thus canceled. Is all we're doing is saying "hey act like a !@#$% on an extreme scale, expect this to be cancelled."

To me it seems as though you've thought about any potential e-lawyering that would need to be done to weasel your way out of fighting if your treaty partner was ever on the wrong end of a beatdown, and found a way to have it all ready for use before anything dangerous actually materialises by including it in the treaty. Then if the !@#$ actually does hit the fan all you'd need to do is proclaim that whatever act it was that got your ally into trouble was "bad behaviour" on their part, and you're free (without even having to break the treaty). It would just be the good old honourable TOP upholding their high standards by using their intelligence in following their treaties and rising above naughty behaviour as always.

I also find the comments about you not ever needing to use the clause to be rather disingenuous. Firstly, if you truly believed this it wouldn't be there. Secondly, they assume that the clause is there just for your benefit, when I'm sure OBR are perfectly happy to have loopholes to get themselves out of sticky situations included in treaties too. Really, you two are perfect for each other, congratulations on the treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also find the comments about you not ever needing to use the clause to be rather disingenuous. Firstly, if you truly believed this it wouldn't be there. Secondly, they assume that the clause is there just for your benefit, when I'm sure OBR are perfectly happy to have loopholes to get themselves out of sticky situations included in treaties too. Really, you two are perfect for each other, congratulations on the treaty.

The treaty is an ODP, and what is the reason for it being optional, well, because if you're the one messing up you don't get help. That's sort of the definition of an ODP, isn't it?

Rather than say 'it is optional to help' we say 'help should be forthcoming, but not in such a case'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, OBR is an honourable ally.

Again. Can anyone think of any time OBR has stood by an ally other than those 6 days they fought with GR in the Karma war?

Is one instance enough? Is honour that cheap here?

Cult of Justitia, making ODPs cool and popular since several months ago.

Don't be modest. You invented the ODP. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be rather surprised, if someone like yourself who tries to portray himself with an aura of intelligence, could not see the difference between upholding your promises, and condoning another alliance's actions.

I am rather surprised that you have changed the point of emphasis from friendship to "promises." The entire philosophy of "Friends > Infra" is founded on the premise that one should support their friends in any circumstance. Unconditional assistance necessarily condones the actions of those that you are assisting. This is the same mentality applied by your average street gang.

In which case, NPO and the degree to which they unquestioningly supported their friends for several years (Valhalla, GGA, etc...) would be the definition, nay, the very embodiment of "friends > infra." So far the current "friends > infra" regime has only helped their friends when they were innocent. NPO helped their friends regardless of innocence or guilt.

Yeah, one actually happened and the other didn't. The NPO never went around saying "Friends > Infra" because they weren't ever in a situation where they had to choose between the two. At least not until the Karma war, when they didn't have any friends anyway.

But the difference between those two examples is irrelevant. MK earned its reputation for defending their friends, and Valhalla and the NPO earned their reputation for bullying and extortion. OBR has not earned their reputation.

Right. NPO never had to make a choice between friends or infra... Perhaps they did not lose infrastructure on a scale the likes of MK during their valiant defenses of their allies, but they did lose it when they didn't have to. Being carried around like a sword in someone else's belt has that effect.

To your second paragraph:

You've just made our point for us. MK and company got a good reputation by doing good things and fighting for honorable causes. NPO and company got a bad reputation for doing bad things and fighting for dishonorable causes. "Friends > Infra" does not equate honor. The honor of it is dependent upon the context, and that is the point.

Yes, OBR is an honourable ally.

:mellow:

Hello SpiderJerusalem. How are you? I am fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again. Can anyone think of any time OBR has stood by an ally other than those 6 days they fought with GR in the Karma war?

Edited to better reflect my meaning :)

Hello SpiderJerusalem. How are you? I am fine.

Hi there. I am spectacular

Edited by SpiderJerusalem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. NPO never had to make a choice between friends or infra... Perhaps they did not lose infrastructure on a scale the likes of MK during their valiant defenses of their allies, but they did lose it when they didn't have to. Being carried around like a sword in someone else's belt has that effect.

Oh Christ, what a joke. Hope you didn't pull of a muscle making that stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The treaty is an ODP, and what is the reason for it being optional, well, because if you're the one messing up you don't get help. That's sort of the definition of an ODP, isn't it?

Rather than say 'it is optional to help' we say 'help should be forthcoming, but not in such a case'

I was responding to LM and his reasoning for including bail-out clauses in general. Obviously a bail-out clause is appropriate in an ODP, but he justified it in the context of it being a part of "almost every treaty" in one way or another.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Christ, what a joke. Hope you didn't pull of a muscle making that stretch.

It's not a stretch to infra-huggers like ourselves. Every .0001 piece of infrastructure is cherished, lovingly, and only given up under duress as it will impact our developmental plans for global domination.

Please remember who you're trying to insult next time and stick to the clearly established patterns of criticism that were pioneered by rulers of superior imagination and articulation.

flirt.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please remember who you're trying to insult next time and stick to the clearly established patterns of criticism that were pioneered by rulers of superior imagination and articulation.

You're right. I should have never bothered to challenge someone with such a superior imagination. I'd like to think of myself as fairly creative, but I certainly couldn't twist an argument with as much desperation as you. Indeed sir, the NPO routinely made great sacrifices of infrastructure for their friends and look at what happened to them! Those friends of theirs, that rode to power on their coattails and benefited from their bullying and extortion abandoned them in their time of greatest need, when the circumstances of the war were exactly as they had been in previous wars, except without an assured victory. And that it is surely far better policy to be one of those friends of the NPO and have taken advantage of their behaviour and then to have bouts of good conscience at the most convenient times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. I should have never bothered to challenge someone with such a superior imagination.

-snip-

I wasn't speaking of myself. I'm saying that there are others that have done a better job than you at what you are currently attempting to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...