jerdge Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 You don't. The point is not trying to play both sides to begin with. One might say that those that chose the stronger side as soon as it was clearly identified, even if they did it before the start of JD's arbitrary limit of five days, are more "survivalist" than those that tried to the last to help all of their friends and to avert the conflict (eventually being rejected and ill-treated by the side they finally decided to leave to its destiny). Fun facts: the timeline of treaty cancellations is a very rough criterion to determine the reasons behind said cancellations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Scian Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 One might say that those that chose the stronger side as soon as it was clearly identified, even if they did it before the start of JD's arbitrary limit of five days, are more "survivalist" than those that tried to the last to help all of their friends and to avert the conflict (eventually being rejected and ill-treated by the side they finally decided to leave to its destiny).Fun facts: the timeline of treaty cancellations is a very rough criterion to determine the reasons behind said cancellations. Aye, agreed 100%. What makes an alliance that cancels a treaty 6 days prior to a war more justified then one that cancels the day before? Especially in a situation such as that stated by the esteemed gentleman I quoted here. Oh well. I guess watching people get upset because their alliance isn't the most "survivialy" is fun to. New version of the word "survivalist" by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 One might say that those that chose the stronger side as soon as it was clearly identified, even if they did it before the start of JD's arbitrary limit of five days, are more "survivalist" than those that tried to the last to help all of their friends and to avert the conflict (eventually being rejected and ill-treated by the side they finally decided to leave to its destiny).Fun facts: the timeline of treaty cancellations is a very rough criterion to determine the reasons behind said cancellations. I don't believe that the winning side could be determined 5 days prior to the start of the war. At least not from the information I had available to me. I believe it was only when those alliances were maltreated and joined with Karma that victory for Karma was a certainty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well the alliances in Karma certainly didn't think it was a foregone conclusion 5 days before ... or even 2 days into the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well the alliances in Karma certainly didn't think it was a foregone conclusion 5 days before ... or even 2 days into the war. Then you were less convinced than we were... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimmerwald1915 Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well the alliances in Karma certainly didn't think it was a foregone conclusion 5 days before ... or even 2 days into the war. Confirmed. Indeed, few people five days before the start thought the coalition would grow to the size that it did. There were quite a few high-profile alliances that were chary of the whole affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 FOKCancelled within 5 days of partner being attacked MDP with TORN - I promise I will be gentle next time accords http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54666 Notified of cancellation on Apr 18 2009 – 2 days before Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW Treaty partner attacked, no assistance provided MDoAP with IRON* Total treaties cancelled/no assistance: 2 Total Allies not provided assistance/cancelled: 2 Predictions: A significant rise is foreseen for both IRON and FOK, IRON due to being part of the coalition of cowards. FOK, due to an incoherent FA direction, they hold treaties with alliances from Citadel, SuperFriends and C&G, as well as many independent alliances, it would be close to impossible for all these treaties to be upheld. Quoted the part about my alliance. Sad to see we are so high up the list. The Karma war was the first war we needed to cancel treaties, We didn't cancel the IRON and TORN treaties in time because they were orange like we were and we didn't want any orange neighborhood drama. We needed to cancel TORN because they were going offensive on OV, and we didn't agree with that. IRON and FOK each knew that we both would go our separate ways so it's not like we abandoned each other in the midst of battle. FOK joined on day 1 the battle on the karma side and therefore couldn't come to the defense of IRON, who joined the hegemony side on day 4. If the list was based on more wars we would be lower on the list. We didn't cancel a treaty during and 10 days before the UJW war, and honored our mdp with GOONS in that war. In the WOTC we didn't cancel any treaty either. About the future, you are right, we have too many treaties with different blocs. This is a heritage from the pre Karma period where we tried to ally several strong allies to bring Karma together. The thing is that we are very good friends with these very cool alliances, and we don't want to cancel for strategic reasons only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 That's just your opinion Tim. Don't take Jack that seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 About the future, you are right, we have too many treaties with different blocs. This is a heritage from the pre Karma period where we tried to ally several strong allies to bring Karma together. The thing is that we are very good friends with these very cool alliances, and we don't want to cancel for strategic reasons only. empashis mine. Very interesting statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 empashis mine.Very interesting statement. I think he's saying they signed treaties just to overthrow NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 21, 2009 Report Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm not sure what he typed there is actually what he meant, since a lot of FOK's allies would certainly not have been expected to be on that side, even if they were in the end (and IRON and NPO were two big ones that weren't). 'To bring Karma and Hegemony together' seems more likely to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm not sure what he typed there is actually what he meant, since a lot of FOK's allies would certainly not have been expected to be on that side, even if they were in the end (and IRON and NPO were two big ones that weren't). 'To bring Karma and Hegemony together' seems more likely to me. That was what I thought he was trying to say. But we could pretend he meant what he said and work a couple more pages of drama out of it, it's been a slow news day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) What would be so bad about signing treaties not only out of friendship, but also with such a strategic goal in mind? I know that's certainly what we aimed towards in Vanguard. And judging by the manner in which treaties were activated in the opening days of the Karma War, it appears as if it was a successful endeavour. Edit: Typo Edited October 22, 2009 by Revanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 What would be so bad about signing treaties not only out of friendship, but also with such a strategic goal in mind? I know that's certainly what we aimed towards in Vanguard. And judging by the manner in which treaties were activated in the opening days of the Karma War, it appears as if it was a successful endeavour. Stupid sexy Revanche. Everyone knows allies are just there to e-cuddle with, MDP's are pacts of hugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Stupid sexy Revanche. Everyone knows allies are just there to e-cuddle with, MDP's are pacts of hugs. That does beg the question, who would want to e-cuddle with Shamed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 That does beg the question, who would want to e-cuddle with Shamed? Someone made of leather. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Everyone knows allies are just there to e-cuddle with, MDP's are pacts of hugs. Been looking for a quote for a sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Signing treaties for purely strategic reasons is likely to end up with you tied up in your own web, as the NPO found, though there's nothing morally wrong with it as long as both sides know that's what's going on. 'Admitting' to organising Karma a long time before the event would be a political hot potato though because that would have been working against their own allies at the time. Unfortunately for the drama-seekers, I know that's not what he meant because there was no attempt to bring (what later became) Karma together at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Signing treaties for purely strategic reasons is likely to end up with you tied up in your own web, as the NPO found, though there's nothing morally wrong with it as long as both sides know that's what's going on. 'Admitting' to organising Karma a long time before the event would be a political hot potato though because that would have been working against their own allies at the time. Unfortunately for the drama-seekers, I know that's not what he meant because there was no attempt to bring (what later became) Karma together at that time. Just to clarify, for example, after FOK left Q we had a problem that some alliances started to gun for us. TPF canceled on our protectorate TGE and made some others (TOOL & NADC) cancel too and had plans to attack them, we believed they had the backup of one Vision, white sphere and the Duckroll bloc along with some others. During that period we had formalized our good friendship with Poison clan who wasn't a big fan of TPF either and had problems with them too. Their was however a good friendship behind the treaty, we spoke with each-other on almost a daily basis and still do. For mdp+ treaties to really work you need 2 things I think. 1 - Friendship on both membership and gov level 2 - The same strategic longterm goals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Signing treaties for purely strategic reasons is likely to end up with you tied up in your own web, as the NPO found, though there's nothing morally wrong with it as long as both sides know that's what's going on. 'Admitting' to organising Karma a long time before the event would be a political hot potato though because that would have been working against their own allies at the time. Unfortunately for the drama-seekers, I know that's not what he meant because there was no attempt to bring (what later became) Karma together at that time. May be I'm a "drama-seeker" but for me that's exactly what he meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 May be I'm a "drama-seeker" but for me that's exactly what he meant. It was defensive in nature. And we weren't working against anyone, only those who wanted to do us harm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) It was defensive in nature. And we weren't working against anyone, only those who wanted to do us harm. I never said it was for a ofensive purpose. But the fact that was preparation for Karma remains, what the problem with that? None, except the fact that many denied that it occurred and Karma forces were bring together just for "coincidence" . But everyone use coincidence as excuse in cyberverse so no problem too. Edited October 22, 2009 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 As far as I'm aware (and I was government in a Karma alliance for pretty much the whole time that tensions were building up), the first semi-organised attempt to even bring together alliances for defence was at the time that VE was cancelling all its treaties in late March. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Chill I Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 As far as I'm aware (and I was government in a Karma alliance for pretty much the whole time that tensions were building up), the first semi-organised attempt to even bring together alliances for defence was at the time that VE was cancelling all its treaties in late March. Indeed it was. Started as an IRC channel with Mike, Me and Roq or Xavii form Umbrella i think and it gradually expanded. We were getting together to see how things would break down if VE got hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 22, 2009 Report Share Posted October 22, 2009 Well what turned into the Karma central IRC channel was registered on 23rd March. That was certainly the first I knew of anything. Its name is so lame because we were more interested in discussing stuff than thinking of a good name, heh. 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.