Hyperion321 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 If you had a protectorate who, for instance, signed an MADP with NPO the day before the Karma war, I guess you'd be pretty pissed off. Ya I'd be pissed, but I'm not going to bar them from doing it (nor could I, really. You can't literally stop someone from being friend with someone else). If they had the balls to charge head first into Karma to defend NPO, then I would respect their commitment to their friends (no matter who their friends are). The legal ramifications of such a move would be a pain to figure out, and who knows if we would still keep them as our protectorate (they did treaty up with somebody on the other side, after all), but I would never do anything to control another alliance's policies, foreign or domestic. doing something like that is just so...well...dickish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingoist Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Which is the reason it's unwritten. They can pull it out of thin air if they'd like. i'd never read such an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avernite Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Ya I'd be pissed, but I'm not going to bar them from doing it (nor could I, really. You can't literally stop someone from being friend with someone else). If they had the balls to charge head first into Karma to defend NPO, then I would respect their commitment to their friends (no matter who their friends are). The legal ramifications of such a move would be a pain to figure out, and who knows if we would still keep them as our protectorate (they did treaty up with somebody on the other side, after all), but I would never do anything to control another alliance's policies, foreign or domestic.doing something like that is just so...well...dickish. Can't stop them, but if you write your treaty properly the legal ramifications get a lot easier to handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spearo Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Wow, I can barely breathe for all the smug. A sure sign PEACE is somewhere nearby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Can't stop them, but if you write your treaty properly the legal ramifications get a lot easier to handle. How would you write a treaty to prepare for such a thing? Going to war with your protectorates MADP partner by activating another allied treaty is not really something that most people prepare for when writing a protectorate agreement. Based on current trends in treaty writing, more than likely something would have to be canceled or broken by somebody, and nobody would go home happy. No alliance likes to be put into a position where they have to choose one ally over another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) There is an unwritten agreement between the governments of alliances that alliance members are off limits for most kinds of pms from outside parties. i would never write such an agreement. i would never unwrite an agreement such as this either. in conclusion, vote for Michiel de Ruyter for purple senate. *edit* - WOOT! 30 pages and haflinger still ain't gettin it. Edited October 25, 2009 by porksaber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Purple Civil War for All Hallows Eve? Liking most of the people in Purple that would make me sad.... unless a certain grouping was rolled completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum T. Gundraw Posted October 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Liking most of the people in Purple that would make me sad.... unless a certain grouping was rolled completely. It's horrible that you talk that way about PEACE. As long as you're having fun, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 our technology has picked up that there is an incoming post from e. schrodinger. this should be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Purple Civil War for All Hallows Eve?Liking most of the people in Purple that would make me sad.... unless a certain grouping was rolled completely. I don't think even Michiel De Ruyter can completely destroy PEACE, sorry. Also, Schrodinger incoming? This will be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) The very notion that (one leader of a nation contacting a leader of another nation and seeking common ground on a democratically elected position) <-- this....constitutes a breach of ANYONE'S sovereignty, is absolutely foolish. Contacting someone is not a violation in any way, shape, or form. If an alliance's(or bloc's) leadership is so inept that they cannot motivate their members to support their efforts, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. I applaud the efforts of Stickmen for trying to educate the rest of Purple, that NO, their little bloc does NOT have an admin given right to hold sway over the purple senate. Edited October 26, 2009 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 The very notion that (one leader of a nation contacting a leader of another nation and seeking common ground on a democratically elected position) <-- this....constitutes a breach of ANYONE'S sovereignty, is absolutely foolish. Contacting someone is not a violation in any way, shape, or form. If an alliance's(or bloc's) leadership is so inept that they cannot motivate their members to support their efforts, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. I applaud the efforts of Stickmen for trying to educate the rest of Purple, that NO, their little bloc does NOT have an admin given right to hold sway over the purple senate. It's a good thing that we don't think that then. Really, sometimes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) It's a good thing that we don't think that then. Really, sometimes... According to a good part of the bloc, Stickmen have violated your sovereignty by asking your members to give voting for our candidate a thought. Edited October 26, 2009 by Unavailable Contact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Schrodinger Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I don't think even Michiel De Ruyter can completely destroy PEACE, sorry.Also, Schrodinger incoming? This will be great. Allow me to tell you a story. One day, I was walking down the road, when I heard a massive skin-to-skin contact around the corner. Thinking obviously Mr T once again found a defenseless victim, I turned to run. I hadn't even turned a fourth of a pi before de Ruyter was in front of me. He didn't even speak, but conveyed a message that because I was a stickman and had voted for him, I was a friend, and should not fear his wrath. He also was kind enough to advise me not to look at what had happened around the corner, as it wasn't pretty. Conclusion: Vote for de Ruyter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shovel Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 It's a good thing that we don't think that then. Really, sometimes... Wait, what? Are you really saying that the majority of the PEACE posters have said it is NOT a violation of your soverignty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I applaud the efforts of Stickmen for trying to educate the rest of Purple, that NO, their little bloc does NOT have an admin given right to hold sway over the purple senate. And we applaud you right back good sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 It's a good thing that we don't think that then. Really, sometimes... I have to correct you here a bit. Your initial argument was: Let's go through this for the ten thousandth time, shall we? Haf's argument was that they should have specified they were asking people to vote for a Stickmen candidate, as we specify in our messages that we're asking them to vote for a PEACE candidate, and that the ambiguity on their part can be interpreted as an official message from us by the more inactive, laidback nations in our larger alliances (OOC: people who spend 10 minutes a week on the game). They responded by saying that it's our nation's fault that they weren't able to discern this themselves and that any misplaced votes are the sole fault of the voter.Which really makes one wonder, if I were to go spam, say, IRON with target lists for ODN nations, and some members didn't bother to fact-check and simply declared, would I be absolved of any possible guilt? + <Haflinger> I consider your spam messages an attempt to impersonate PEACE government officials.<Haflinger> Impersonating alliance government is an act of war, however. Conclusion: You have committed an act of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 According to a good part of the bloc, Stickmen have violated your sovereignty by asking your members to give voting for our candidate a thought. Wait, what? Are you really saying that the majority of the PEACE posters have said it is NOT a violation of your soverignty? I have yet to see a single member of PEACE say that you do not have a right to hold to a senate seat. I don't believe I've ever heard one say that. What did our friend Rush say? I applaud the efforts of Stickmen for trying to educate the rest of Purple, that NO, their little bloc does NOT have an admin given right to hold sway over the purple senate. We don't. We've affirmed this. Out problem has never been with your intent or goal, but rather your methods. If you could elect a senator without messaging AA's who have not consented to recieving them, I would personally congratulate you on a job well done. Now, as to the issue of violation of sovereignty. I've heard that more out of others' mouths than out of actual PEACE members, and quite honestly I'm not even sure how the word got brought up, it doesn't seem terribly relevant. Regardless, it is not a violation of sovereignty, but of ettiquette. And yes, I would still hold that you are asking our members to violate treaty-bound comittments, whatever you may take that to mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amonra Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 ...and should not fear his wrath. As a victim of his so called "wrath", let me tell you that there is nothing to fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 As a victim of his so called "wrath", let me tell you that there is nothing to fear. Are you sure? Think hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 (edited) I have to correct you here a bit. Your initial argument was:+ LOL, I am glad you posted this my FAN friend, I missed both of those tidbits. Its hilarious to equate a senate a vote with target lists to incite a war. Absurd really. And the little thing at the end, that these messages constitued an act of war, are you flipping kidding me? WAR? Seeking a senate vote? Because they didnt ID who the candidate was? Purple is the lulz. Edited October 26, 2009 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 I am glad you posted this my FAN friend That's actually Tromp from FOK. Halloween confuses the $%&@ out of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 That's actually Tromp from FOK. Halloween confuses the $%&@ out of me. GAH! too many costumes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Wait, what? Are you really saying that the majority of the PEACE posters have said it is NOT a violation of your soverignty? Yes. The objection is to dishonesty in the messages themselves. Has always been. If the messages clearly identified the source and described who the person they were advocating for was, I wouldn't have a problem with them. We don't object to information, but rather to disinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shovel Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 Yes.The objection is to dishonesty in the messages themselves. Has always been. If the messages clearly identified the source and described who the person they were advocating for was, I wouldn't have a problem with them. We don't object to information, but rather to disinformation. Because the box saying who it is sent from totally doesn't identify the person. Are you really saying your members are that stupid? 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.