The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[jerdge]

Also managing to deny military assistance to 7 alliances, MHA, comes in second place, notably not coming to the defense of the NPO regardless of an MDoAP which had a year long cancelation clause.

Treaty partner attacked, no assistance provided

MDoAP – NPO

You "forgot" to mention that the NPO was on the aggressive in the Karma War, having attacked OV, and that our MDoAP with them was an optional aggression pact. Our treaty with RoK was (and is) instead a MDP, that we honoured by declaring on IRON in defence of them. We also had previously declared our vision on how our treaties applied in that situation.

As we had allies on both fronts, anyway, I wonder how we could have not "denied military assistance" to somebody.

The next global war is slated for sometime in the distant future, I predict TOP and MHA will remain the highest rated survivalist alliances, they have shown no remorse for their survivalist ideals, unless a war hits the Citadel directly I expect many cancelations and treaty voiding.

Bring it, the sooner the better.

Cancelled within 5 days of partner being attacked

MDoAP with TPF, IRON, OG, NPO, MCXA, NATO, Valhalla - Continuum

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54712

Notified of cancellation on Apr 18 2009 – 2 days before Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW

AFAIK the MHA notifed its former Q partners on the 17th (server time) and the Karma War started on the 21st (a little more than 72 hours after our exit from Q).

I wouldn't let mathematics, nor the fact that the "so convenient for us" time of the initial DoW was chosen by the party "we didn't assist", nor the fact that Q was not an Aggression Pact and it wouldn't have obligated the MHA to do anything - I wouldn't let anything of this get in the way of your brilliant analysis of the timeline, of the responsibilities and of the obligations. Chapeau.

(Treaty partner attacked, no assistance provided)

MDoAP – TORN*

I could repeat for TORN a good chunk of what I already said about the NPO, but it would mean to be giving too much credit to your theory.

TORN got out of the war in less than 24 hours, and (IIRC) before anybody had DoWed on them. Now, do you think that the MHA was obligated to assist TORN in their aggression, despite the treaty being an optional aggression pact, or do you think that the MHA was obligated to defend TORN after its exit from the war? Or maybe both?

(Treaty partner attacked, no assistance provided)

MADP with NATO – Trident*

This is the most ridiculous accusation ever. Trident said that if two signatories decided to attack someone, the third would have been obligated to assist them. Please go check where the third signatory (Fark) was in the Karma War.

Ohwait, you already checked it, and you decided that Fark also "denied assistance" to NATO...

Jack, now you can choose only one of the following:

1. Military assistance, TORN, Trident. You do all of the following:
   
   • You explain how the MHA could have provided military assistance to both fronts in the Karma War.
     
   • You explain why the MHA was obligated to enact the optional part of the TORN pact, or how the MHA could have defended TORN in a war of which TORN was no part anymore, and anyway why the MHA should have backed up TORN's aggression and not its other allies' defensive assistance to OV's side.
     
   • You explain why MHA+Fark were the minority of the three signatories of Trident, while NATO was the majority of them.
     

[*]Retraction

You retract your ridiculous accusations against the MHA.

[*]Credibility

Assuming you still have some, you lose it.

[Bob]

You "forgot" to mention that the NPO was on the aggressive in the Karma War, having attacked OV, and that our MDoAP with them was an optional aggression pact. Our treaty with RoK was (and is) instead a MDP, that we honoured by declaring on IRON in defence of them. We also had previously declared our vision on how our treaties applied in that situation.

As we had allies on both fronts, anyway, I wonder how we could have not "denied military assistance" to somebody.

Bring it, the sooner the better.

AFAIK the MHA notifed its former Q partners on the 17th (server time) and the Karma War started on the 21st (a little more than 72 hours after our exit from Q).

I wouldn't let mathematics, nor the fact that the "so convenient for us" time of the initial DoW was chosen by the party "we didn't assist", nor the fact that Q was not an Aggression Pact and it wouldn't have obligated the MHA to do anything - I wouldn't let anything of this get in the way of your brilliant analysis of the timeline, of the responsibilities and of the obligations. Chapeau.

I could repeat for TORN a good chunk of what I already said about the NPO, but it would mean to be giving too much credit to your theory.

TORN got out of the war in less than 24 hours, and (IIRC) before anybody had DoWed on them. Now, do you think that the MHA was obligated to assist TORN in their aggression, despite the treaty being an optional aggression pact, or do you think that the MHA was obligated to defend TORN after its exit from the war? Or maybe both?

This is the most ridiculous accusation ever. Trident said that if two signatories decided to attack someone, the third would have been obligated to assist them. Please go check where the third signatory (Fark) was in the Karma War.

Ohwait, you already checked it, and you decided that Fark also "denied assistance" to NATO...

Jack, now you can choose only one of the following:

1. Military assistance, TORN, Trident. You do all of the following:
   
   • You explain how the MHA could have provided military assistance to both fronts in the Karma War.
     
   • You explain why the MHA was obligated to enact the optional part of the TORN pact, or how the MHA could have defended TORN in a war of which TORN was no part anymore, and anyway why the MHA should have backed up TORN's aggression and not its other allies' defensive assistance to OV's side.
     
   • You explain why MHA+Fark were the minority of the three signatories of Trident, while NATO was the majority of them.
     

[*]Retraction

You retract your ridiculous accusations against the MHA.

[*]Credibility

Assuming you still have some, you lose it.

I'll admit to it, I just laughed so hard.

[Delta1212]

I'm looking at my allies Treaty list and don't see RoK or GOD on there... nor do I recall them ever having signed a treaty with either of those alliances so I don't think you can call them allies. The attempt to throw RoK and GOD under the bus was nothing more than an explanation of why they were doing something so unusual. Had an explanation not been offered, everyone would have cried out and demanded to know why, or speculated as to such.

And I'm curious if you actually know the definition of an ally based on your comments thus far.

If you look, he did actually say "alliances" rather than "allies" at that point.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I'm looking at my allies Treaty list and don't see RoK or GOD on there... nor do I recall them ever having signed a treaty with either of those alliances so I don't think you can call them allies. The attempt to throw RoK and GOD under the bus was nothing more than an explanation of why they were doing something so unusual. Had an explanation not been offered, everyone would have cried out and demanded to know why, or speculated as to such.

And I'm curious if you actually know the definition of an ally based on your comments thus far.

TOP was on the same side of the war as Rok and GOD. Not IRON.

[Heracles the Great]

TOP was on the same side of the war as Rok and GOD. Not IRON.

And that was relevant to the discusion how?

Being on the same side does not make you an ally... Kronos was on the same side as RIA and PC but they are not, nor were they ever, an ally of Kronos'

[Bob Janova]

Ragnarok and GOD are TOP allies? I must have missed that.

[Believland]

So essentially what you're saying is that you guys have huge e-penises but no e-testicles to back them up?

Hey babe, you want to bring your e-testicles over here

Aww can't take the heat? Get off my lawn poser; you can take your weak casualty counts and your exaggerated accounts of battling to ZI and back with you.

I wonder how inflated your casualty count is with tech raiding. Please read above, poser

The next global war will give us the next stats, the last global war was the NoCB, and it was too difficult to get reliable stats for, so I left it out.

best i could do Gov'ner

I think you mean "It'd portray my allies in bad taste"

OH I GET IT NOW. His TOP mandated war chest was so awesome that not only could he buy back up to 2000 infra ( about what 200,000 casualties equates to on average, although probably alot less given your nuke policy in the last war), he could buy an ADDITIONAL 12,000 infra! Silly me, i have trouble understanding some of the finer aspects of game play that our TOP overlords have clearly mastered and patented already.

Maybe you need to take some beginner classes. You being MoF and all, it could really help. It looks like NpO has gotten information, since they are growing greatly(Which I like)

TOP are cowards, what would they know of war?

See first quote

You canceled on the continuum on the eve of war, that's why in my stats it says "canceled within 5 days of partner being attacked", its exactly what you did. Successful survivalist alliances cancel their treaties a few days before war begins, its what defines them, you are a prime example.

Also, if your MDoAP and MDP treaties do not require you to defend your partner, they are obviously an ODP, and should be listed as such.

Coming from the friend of ODN, this makes me lol. You be reading their guides on it? and no they're still MDPs we just don't want to get carried away in your stupid $$*%

Yo TOP, I was just in #athens right, heard these two dudes talkin' and one of them said to the other one, that they knew someone, who said you guys are infra huggers!

I thought they said we were wack

The problem here being that TOP has shown a consistent behavior of being allied to alliances that will predictably become enemies in the future.  This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars.  This isn't consistent with the death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of.  For some reason TOP thinks they're fooling all of CN by doing this, but as this thread shows they're really not which has made them upset.  TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies.  There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it.

Oh so we only allowed to have friends on one side of the map?

Two wrongs don't make a right.  At least the Coward Coalition attempted to save face by going back to honor their treaties that they were obligated to.  As far as I can tell the only treaties TOP needs to be signing are ODPs.

No, they were shamed into protecting NPO. Please don't spew facts

As if anyone needed proof that TOP was all about protecting themselves and their own.  I thought that was common knowledge by now.

Oh baby, don't talk that way. You know I'll always come and help you out

You guys literally cannot pull yourselves away from it LM.  It is like you are transfixed.  You yourselves have turned this into a major issue much more then Jack did.  You have shown a chink in your armor, you have shown you are worried and are defensive.  How many of the TOP responses here are just personal attacks?

I don't like it when someone insults my honor. And I don't think you'd like it either

As was Crymson [u][b]13[/b][/u] pages ago.



Yet TOP's idiocy continues to fuel the fire.

Oh don't worry, you're the gas to the fire

I have found this to be quite ignorant - the way it's being played off as a joke does not match up with the actual comments made

No, the only joke is the OPer

Or perhaps he's talking about the openness, the lack of fear and intimidation, the kind that was rampant between those times that made people and entire alliances disappear merely for voicing their displeasure at certain alliances and certain blocs.

It's refreshing to be able to speak ones mind as openly and freely as one chooses, and not have to worry that their opinions will lead to the downfall of their friends and treaty partners.

Hush up AJ, or I'll ZI youuz

I've had countless alliances threaten me, and also try to threaten the alliances I've been in (mostly MA), only to be told to either suck it up, or if they have a problem, to take it up with me personally.  That sort of thing never really would have happened before, and I'd have had a lot of blood on my hands through my behaviour.

It's one thing if it's your own blood...

You're on my ZT list now, enjoy

Edited October 14, 2009 by Believland

[Delta1212]

And that was relevant to the discusion how?

Being on the same side does not make you an ally... Kronos was on the same side as RIA and PC but they are not, nor were they ever, an ally of Kronos'

And, again, no one actually called Rok or GOD your allies. He called them alliances. Unless being allied to you is a prerequisite to being an alliances, this is a rather non-sensical point that no one made which you are trying to counter.

[Delta1212]

Ragnarok and GOD are TOP allies? I must have missed that.

And, yet again, the only person who said that was Heracles in counterng the point which, again, no one actually made.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Delta1212

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

The number of Prophets on Planet Bob is truly astounding. A posteriori, at least. Listening to some people, it was a well known fact that the Karma war was going to come on April 20th and was going to play out exactly that way.

Hindsight and all that, I guess.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

And that was relevant to the discusion how?

Being on the same side does not make you an ally... Kronos was on the same side as RIA and PC but they are not, nor were they ever, an ally of Kronos'

If you aren't going to treat your co-belligerents better than your enemy, then you probably shouldn't have showed up to the party.

[Heracles the Great]

If you aren't going to treat your co-belligerents better than your enemy, then you probably shouldn't have showed up to the party.

Funny - I thought IRON was TOP's Ally - not their enemy... You seem confused, perhaps you should go back and read up on your history.

Just because TOP fought with "Karma" does not make everyone that "Karma" fought their enemy nor everyone that fought with "Karma" their ally.

[Chaoshawk]

Meh, I know it was hot topic 10 pages back but just wanted to mention that there was no way in hell that TOP could have come out looking decent in the eyes of most of the pinheads here during the karma war.

TOP comes in on the side of Karma at the start: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies and chose to jump in with the stronger side and are a bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

TOP goes in for the hegemony side: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies and chose the evil side (and possibly jeopardized a karma victory).

TOP stays out: Arguments range from TOP bailed on all its allies and cuddled their infra and are bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

TOP comes in late: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies, chose easy targets and came in when it was going to get less damage and thus are a bunch of infra cuddling cowards escaping due punishment.

(i must admit that given the timing that was probably the second worst decision)

All this with the footnote of Crymson's generally ignored legalistic point that treaties are non-chaining for a reason.

The above formula also applies to any of the so called coalition of cowards. Had any of those alliances chosen to conscientiously not fight because it was simply wrong given that the NPO had started an stupid aggressive war, they would have been called....well cowards...rather than critical thinkers and stand up guys.

In fact, while talking to IRON and MCXA i could hardly blame them for deciding to go in because if they hadnt (and they had every moral and legal reason not to) they would have been branded for ever.

Then the question becomes well should they have been allied to the NPO in the first place in which case the answer is maybe, maybe not but given that even alliances like RIA had an MDP with NPO throughout the war the point becomes moot since we all at one point or another had our hand in the dirty NPO cookie jar (except for MK and C&G but thats moot since they were pretty much automatically excluded).

EDIT: I guess my point was that you can !@#$%* and whine as much as you want about it but there is never going to be any winner to this argument since no matter what TOP had done they would have still been crucified for a sin. But hey thats the nature of this world of ours.

Sounds immensely similar to ODN's situation at the time.

[Kaiser]

TOP was on the same side of the war as Rok and GOD. Not IRON.

Wait, what? Just because we fought on the same side of the war as somebody does not mean we are closer to them than our actual allies.

[Heracles the Great]

And, yet again, the only person who said that was Heracles in counterng the point which, again, no one actually made.

Sorry Delta, but you may have missed it. Jones in his original comments said that TOP threw their allies under hte bus. When asked which allies he was referring to, he said RoK and GOD and cited the Echelon peace terms thread that TOP and TSO made seperate from the rest of the forces fighting against Echelon.

That's pretty clear

Edited October 14, 2009 by Heracles the Great

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Still stuck on ally, huh. Protip, co-belligerent != ally.

IRON was on the other side of the war from TOP, hence they were enemies; if IRON triumphed, TOP's cause would be damaged.

If you or TOP find this uncomfortable, then you really shouldn't have participated. I know I wouldn't hold it against you.

[astronaut jones]

Ragnarok and GOD are TOP allies? I must have missed that.

edited because. yes, I too can grow tired of pointless drama.

Edited October 14, 2009 by astronaut jones

[Heracles the Great]

And, again, no one actually called Rok or GOD your allies. He called them alliances. Unless being allied to you is a prerequisite to being an alliances, this is a rather non-sensical point that no one made which you are trying to counter.

See my previous post and perhaps check my alliance - I'm not in TOP nor have I ever been.

[Tarikmo]

Just a question, didn't NPO deny/not assist STA when they requested help during WoTC? Sorry if that was discussed already.

[astronaut jones]

I'm looking at my allies Treaty list and don't see RoK or GOD on there... nor do I recall them ever having signed a treaty with either of those alliances so I don't think you can call them allies. The attempt to throw RoK and GOD under the bus was nothing more than an explanation of why they were doing something so unusual. Had an explanation not been offered, everyone would have cried out and demanded to know why, or speculated as to such.

And I'm curious if you actually know the definition of an ally based on your comments thus far.

And I'm curious if you need everything to be spelled out in their entirety, and if you view the world in strictly black and white terms, because, hey, you're playing it off that way.

[Heracles the Great]

*sigh* You of all people should know that they were allies in the war sense, fighting the same enemy.. nevermind, people on these forums are too dense for their own goods most of the time, I always figured you were one of the better ones. I take it everything needs to be spelled out completely, all the time these days.

Or perhaps we're just making it abundently clear that fighting with someone doesn't make them your ally and that at no point did TOP throw anyone (especially an ally) under the bus. To say they did would be a lie and boarderline slander.

[Heracles the Great]

And I'm curious if you need everything to be spelled out in their entirety, and if you view the world in strictly black and white terms, because, hey, you're playing it off that way.

So what you're saying is that when you say something, it shouldn't be taken seriously since it's usually inaccurate?

[Bob]

Or perhaps we're just making it abundently clear that fighting with someone doesn't make them your ally and that at no point did TOP throw anyone (especially an ally) under the bus. To say they did would be a lie and boarderline slander.

TOP threw their allies under a bus.

There.

So what you're saying is that when you say something, it shouldn't be taken seriously since it's usually inaccurate?

No, he is saying that you need to not be a hardhead and actually read his post for the meaning.

[Bob Janova]

'Allies in the war sense'? You mean, not allies at all? Yeah, I knew what you meant, but that's not 'allies'. Were we allies of GGA in the Hyperion/BLEU war? No. We weren't even allies of R&R who were on our front. We weren't allies of RoK in the Karma war despite being on the same front. Being on the same side of a war definitely does not make one allies, and it's natural to put the interests of your MDP partners (even those on the 'wrong side') above those of non-allies who you happen to be working with for a temporary, short term mutual interest.

Claiming TOP threw those alliances under the bus is a huge overstatement of what actually happened. They disagreed with operating procedure and, once the operation was complete, made their own peace – which I personally disagree with (we could have done that with Polar and with IRON but instead worked out a compromise with co-belligerents), but it is nowhere near throwing under a bus.

[astronaut jones]

Or perhaps we're just making it abundently clear that fighting with someone doesn't make them your ally and that at no point did TOP throw anyone (especially an ally) under the bus. To say they did would be a lie and boarderline slander.

It would be different if they were merely on the same side, but on different fronts. I fought on the same side as you, and I outright hate you and I hate your alliance, but we weren't fighting on the same front, if we were you would have been my ally, because how you did, how you were being treated, and how you were handling the war would directly affect my alliance. We would be allies out of necessity.

It is quite unfortunate that everything needs to be spelled out, or there are people like you who would seek to twist the words of others, while completely disregarding the original point, that being it is alright for TOP to act the way they do, if only they would own up to their past behaviour. I've stuck by this point since I originally voiced my displeasure at TOP, they merely need to be honest about their behaviour and their intentions.

edit: And, whatever you say, bobby j.

Edited October 14, 2009 by astronaut jones