Francesca Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 The only thing I remember about Soldier was that they got rolled by TPF for some reason that was highly disputed as being BS by a lot of other people. Beyond that, I don't know anything about Soldier but its always good to remember alliances you felt "at home" with. They found out TheAUT was Misr's reroll. Reroll.Point stands. Your alliance no longer exists, probably due to stupidity by leadership, and now your here trying to be all nostalgic and trying to add self worth to your useless and ultimately irrelevant former home. Thus I lol. I wear your scorn as a badge of honor You are one of the most pathetic people I have ever had the misfortune to come across. Post constructively or not at all. Soldier joined the OPP after they were attacked by TPF, not before. I fail to see how this reflects poorly on TPF, or Soldier, for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 They found out TheAUT was Misr's reroll.You are one of the most pathetic people I have ever had the misfortune to come across. Post constructively or not at all. Soldier joined the OPP after they were attacked by TPF, not before. I fail to see how this reflects poorly on TPF, or Soldier, for that matter. I viewed the outcome of that situation and our interactions with theAUT (given our previous history) as a success story. Many folks talk about getting over the past and giving new rulers fresh starts, but how many will stand by their politics and move on. The answer is not many, most will resort to petty attacks on new rulers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 I viewed the outcome of that situation and our interactions with theAUT (given our previous history) as a success story. Many folks talk about getting over the past and giving new rulers fresh starts, but how many will stand by their politics and move on. The answer is not many, most will resort to petty attacks on new rulers. I thought so too. *shrugs* I admire TPF quite a lot, no matter what anyone says, and this was one reason why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerontech Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 I thought so too. *shrugs* I admire TPF quite a lot, no matter what anyone says, and this was one reason why. This is also why so many Soldier nations were willing to jump to war when TPF needed help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 First off, your statement doesn't even make sense."so you're telling me this has less validity than this" - Then you link some ronin mk treaty or picture. How can anything be less valid than itself? OK, I'll bite on that one. It probably would have been better to say "So you're telling me that has less validity than this:" I was comparing the Soldier protectorate to the MK-Ronin treaty. Neither one has articles, or really says anything other than "We have a treaty" By your logic, MK attacking Ronin wouldn't be a violation of the treaty, since it doesn't actually say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) OK, I'll bite on that one. It probably would have been better to say "So you're telling me that has less validity than this:" I was comparing the Soldier protectorate to the MK-Ronin treaty. Neither one has articles, or really says anything other than "We have a treaty" By your logic, MK attacking Ronin wouldn't be a violation of the treaty, since it doesn't actually say anything. There is still quite a bit of difference between mutual and signed terms and general protection which is unilateral. General protection is also granted by our military generals, I doubt your mow or shroom of doom whatever it is has that authority. Our generals have that authority because it is a unilateral non binding offer of aid and assistance. Our goal in most these situations was to protect from tech raiders decimating a young AA after they announce, but for whatever reason don't have the numbers or have yet secured a full protectorate. It is an interesting question of what could happen with you down the line if things get hairy... Edited November 11, 2009 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Wrong forum, surely? Also, Mhawk, you're really claiming that attacking a General's Protectorate is ok because it wasn't really a protectorate? I don't even care if that's legally correct (whatever that means), surely you can see that attacking someone who thought you were protecting them is wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Soldier was a quality alliance with quality members, and most of all, quality leadership. No doubt. Never a bad announcement from Soldier. Also, Mhawk, you're really claiming that attacking a General's Protectorate is ok because it wasn't really a protectorate? I don't even care if that's legally correct (whatever that means), surely you can see that attacking someone who thought you were protecting them is wrong? He's still rolling the hard six, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facetten Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Wrong forum, surely?Also, Mhawk, you're really claiming that attacking a General's Protectorate is ok because it wasn't really a protectorate? I don't even care if that's legally correct (whatever that means), surely you can see that attacking someone who thought you were protecting them is wrong? TPF attacking Soldier had substantial effect on our relationship, i lost trust in them after the incident, and really wanted to stay away, but i was just the minority. i couldn't stop soldier from joining OPP,so eventually i left. and soldier disbanded shortly after. i consider TPF caused soldier's downfall, directly or indirectly.Just to be fair, if we stood together regardless of continuing our relationship with TPF or not, we wouldn't fall. nonetheless TPF was the trouble. Edited November 12, 2009 by facetten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 TPF attacking Soldier had substantial effect on our relationship, i lost trust in them after the incident, and really wanted to stay away, but i was just the minority. i couldn't stop soldier from joining OPP,so eventually i left. and soldier disbanded shortly after. i consider TPF caused soldier's downfall, directly or indirectly.Just to be fair, if we stood together regardless of continuing our relationship with TPF or not, we wouldn't fall. nonetheless TPF was the trouble. I really don't think TPF was the absolute failure here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Also, Mhawk, you're really claiming that attacking a General's Protectorate is ok because it wasn't really a protectorate? I don't even care if that's legally correct (whatever that means), surely you can see that attacking someone who thought you were protecting them is wrong? So mhawk is as bad as PC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eragon55 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 Thanks, glade to see a member of 38 days old is increasing his post count, next time you decide to post maybe you should leave it to something you know something about, other wise you look like the noob you are. this is the best quote of the day o/ soldier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 The thing about a General's Protectorate is that it is a statement not a treaty. Nothing is ever signed for a General's protectorate. The only thing that happens is a statement of protection for the benefit of the greater community. A GP doesn;t even have to be wanted mutually. TPF could say they were protecting whoever they wanted. (see TBB's many statements of protection) They could also withdraw that protection at any given moment. So that being known and true TPF could attack Soldier for any reason they deemed reasonable. Whether they should have is another debate. Tl:dr Mhawk is right on that point. Soldier was a good alliance. I remember peak membership during my time there as over 120. I wish that our leadership didn;t leave after the end of the Karma War. We coulda made a go of it. As it was I was left with very few active members to administer for over 100 members. There was really no other choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facetten Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) I really don't think TPF was the absolute failure here. their attacking us gave us lots of trouble internally, especially when it came to FA. The thing about a General's Protectorate is that it is a statement not a treaty. Nothing is ever signed for a General's protectorate. The only thing that happens is a statement of protection for the benefit of the greater community. A GP doesn;t even have to be wanted mutually. TPF could say they were protecting whoever they wanted. (see TBB's many statements of protection) They could also withdraw that protection at any given moment. So that being known and true TPF could attack Soldier for any reason they deemed reasonable. Whether they should have is another debate. Tl:dr Mhawk is right on that point. i say by convention, people generally think of GP a treaty.hence, you usually announce it when the agreement is made, otherwise you'd see an alliance with multiple protectors, which i think is not common. I supposed there was a non-aggression clause in GP, if not, our mistake for signing it Edited November 13, 2009 by facetten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coven Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 I liked Soldier. Awesome flag too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted November 13, 2009 Report Share Posted November 13, 2009 i say by convention, people generally think of GP a treaty.hence, you usually announce it when the agreement is made, otherwise you'd see an alliance with multiple protectors, which i think is not common. I supposed there was a non-aggression clause in GP, if not, our mistake for signing it Maybe you misunderstood, there was no signature by Soldier on any document with TPF until OPP much after the war. Thus, there was no non aggression pact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facetten Posted November 14, 2009 Report Share Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) Maybe you misunderstood, there was no signature by Soldier on any document with TPF until OPP much after the war. Thus, there was no non aggression pact. well then, is surrender term a legal document? anyway, i can't find our old GP, and i'd be surprised there wasn't something similar since OPP is in fact protectorate pact. i don't care about GP all that much, or whatever reason they attacked us, whether it was justifiable or not. it's important to note that TPF is totally capable and willing to attack its protectorate. Edited November 14, 2009 by facetten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStig Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Ahh. This brings back memories. :') o/ Soldier. 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.