astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 If you think Invicta's made an eve-of-war cancellation, then go ahead and make your accusation. I asked you to think long and hard on it, you know I'm not one to mince my words. Give me more credit than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 If you think Invicta's made an eve-of-war cancellation, then go ahead and make your accusation. Also, I should ask, you and/or invicta has never canceled a treaty just so it would be easier for you or your friends to roll that alliance? So you weren't obligated to defend them? Never? You've never at all canceled on someone so, later on, you and your "true friends" could attack that very alliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 GR has bled (in terms of pixels, i suppose it's "degaussed"?) for their allies, time and time again. I've been with GR for over a year now, and I don't know of an instance where a treaty had been canceled on the eve of war, or canceled in convenience to isolate and sabotage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Also, I should ask, you and/or invicta has never canceled a treaty just so it would be easier for you or your friends to roll that alliance? So you weren't obligated to defend them?Never? You've never at all canceled on someone so, later on, you and your "true friends" could attack that very alliance? Good question/something to consider, but I'm not sure how this lines up with your OP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Also, I should ask, you and/or invicta has never canceled a treaty just so it would be easier for you or your friends to roll that alliance? So you weren't obligated to defend them?Never? You've never at all canceled on someone so, later on, you and your "true friends" could attack that very alliance? Nope. The only alliance we've ever agitated to roll was Illuminati. There weren't any alliances we needed to cancel on in order to hit them; we did start working with NPO with the intent of getting NPO to drop them, but we weren't allied to NPO then. We're not what you'd describe as an aggressive alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) Good question/something to consider, but I'm not sure how this lines up with your OP? Everyone is claiming that they would stand by their ally no matter what. They would defend them even if they were in the wrong, all I'm doing is casting suspicion on their claims, because what they claim does not match up with reality. Some people, i admit, have never been in an alliance that bailed on an ally. Some people, I admit, even though their alliance bailed on an ally, they still defended those they thought were in the right. Though, when everyone claims moral superiority, and the facts show that very few people can lay claim to walking the walk, then I'm casting suspicion on their claims. [edited: spelling] Edited December 4, 2009 by astronaut jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Nope.The only alliance we've ever agitated to roll was Illuminati. There weren't any alliances we needed to cancel on in order to hit them; we did start working with NPO with the intent of getting NPO to drop them, but we weren't allied to NPO then. We're not what you'd describe as an aggressive alliance. Then I guess you're one of the very, very few. I'm certain everyone else is going to claim to be with you on that very shortly however. I wouldn't believe most of them, though, if I were you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Then I guess you're one of the very, very few. I'm certain everyone else is going to claim to be with you on that very shortly however. I wouldn't believe most of them, though, if I were you. Yeah, I'd tend to agree with this assessment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Everyone is claiming that they would stand by their ally no matter what. They would defend them even if they were in the wrong, all I'm doing is casting suspicion on their claims, because what they claim does not match up with reality. Some people, i admit, have never been in an alliance that bailed on an ally. Some people, I admit, even though their alliance bailed on an ally, they still defended those they thought were in the right.Though, when everyone claims moral superiority, and the facts show that very few people can lay claim to walking the walk, then I'm casting suspicion on their claims. [edited: spelling] Casting Suspicion makes sense now... I'd like to pose another question. Would you agree that the "atrocities" and "wrong doings" are discussed more in-depth than when an alliance does the "right thing?" From my own experience, I've seen many announcements of alliances "doing it right" that get a o/ here and there and that's it. When an alliance's action is in question, the result is a 50+ page argument, and more people tend to be aware. The more you hear about something, the more you feel it is in the majority, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Casting Suspicion makes sense now...I'd like to pose another question. Would you agree that the "atrocities" and "wrong doings" are discussed more in-depth than when an alliance does the "right thing?" From my own experience, I've seen many announcements of alliances "doing it right" that get a o/ here and there and that's it. When an alliance's action is in question, the result is a 50+ page argument, and more people tend to be aware. The more you hear about something, the more you feel it is in the majority, yes? When an alliance does the right thing, and even the wrong thing, it's known. It's neither heard more or less, discussed more or less, etc. etc. The only time when something is discussed at length is when it's a polarizing incident, such as the infamous GGA thread that went some 80+ pages. Otherwise, the good and the bad are heard just as much. It's human nature to remember the bad more than the good though. Seriously on that last point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Otherwise, the good and the bad are heard just as much. It's human nature to remember the bad more than the good though. Seriously on that last point. I guess i wrote "heard" but really meant "remembered." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Nope. I may be wrong, but didn't you cancel on NpO along with all the other alliances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 If your alliance is fighting for an ally you don't like, your alliance is still fighting. If you don't fight for your alliance, than you shouldn't be there in the first place. (Or you could be a banker, I guess) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 If your alliance is fighting for an ally you don't like, your alliance is still fighting. If you don't fight for your alliance, than you shouldn't be there in the first place. (Or you could be a banker, I guess) Bankers are outdated, and have been outdated since probably just after the UjW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I may be wrong, but didn't you cancel on NpO along with all the other alliances? Wikia says so. I'm in support of UPN on this. Altheus and i discussed this at long length last night. Invicta wont be making any new announcements on forum, we feel there are enough already, but you can find our official position stated on our forums. i dont have an account on their old forums to see said statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Also, I should ask, you and/or invicta has never canceled a treaty just so it would be easier for you or your friends to roll that alliance? So you weren't obligated to defend them?Never? You've never at all canceled on someone so, later on, you and your "true friends" could attack that very alliance? No, but they did request that an ally drop another ally so they wouldn't have to lose infra by hitting them. Does that count? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 No, but they did request that an ally drop another ally so they wouldn't have to lose infra by hitting them. Does that count? Yeah, it does count, actually. So, now that pretty much everyone's in the same boat, that their machismo is 95% talk and 5% action, maybe we can start filtering through the crap and possible get some answers to the questions I've asked. Legitimate answers, the kind that are based in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 I would only refuse to defend an ally if I felt that defense was a disastrous and irrevocably damaging course of action for my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 2 alliances I would not fight for (meaning if we went to war in defense of them (with these two, HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY UNLIKELY)) I'd be pissed, and might not participate but probably would participate anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agafaba Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Yeah, it does count, actually.So, now that pretty much everyone's in the same boat, that their machismo is 95% talk and 5% action, maybe we can start filtering through the crap and possible get some answers to the questions I've asked. Legitimate answers, the kind that are based in fact. Not everyone, because there could be several members of an alliance who would defend their friends regardless... however they simply never became friends with other alliances. Alliances usually represent the majority of members, but they can never represent the opinions of every member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Not everyone, because there could be several members of an alliance who would defend their friends regardless... however they simply never became friends with other alliances. Alliances usually represent the majority of members, but they can never represent the opinions of every member. I never said everyone, but the vast majority have been in an alliance that dropped an ally for illegitimate reasons, and then refused to fight for their friend, even though most people here have said they would stick up for an ally even if they're in the wrong. I know some people have. I know some people have both dropped treaties for illegitimate reasons AND fought for an ally even after the fact. But most people, if they're claiming that they'd fight no matter what, when history shows no, they in fact will not fight no matter what, then we've got to weed out those responses and get back on track. And again, speaking in hypotheticals, is there any reason why you (and by you I mean anyone reading this) would not defend an ally of your alliance? Or would you refuse to fight to defend the friend of an ally to your alliance? Case in point, I knew that when FOK signed with Poison Clan, gremlins said they would not fight in the war if PC was shown to be the cause. Do I know if that was the official government position? No, but I had members of FOK* tell me as much, and that's perfectly fine. Gremlins had that right to not be dragged into a fight based upon an alliance they disliked but an ally of theirs did. So, I merely ask if there are any circumstances that you (again, anyone reading this) would not defend an ally of your alliance, or an ally of an ally to your alliance. [edit:] * may have been someone from umbrella, but I've been closer to FOK (since I really like FOK) than I've ever been with anyone in umbrella. It was before the karma war, my memory for little details isn't what it should be. Edited December 5, 2009 by astronaut jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitex Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 If I didn't like an alliance, I'd tell the triumvirates so and point out good reasons why I won't fight to defend them, if MHA kicked me out, then I'd just have to go and find a new alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 I do not pick allies I do not intend to defend. NPO was the one time that I signed onto a military pact because of a friendship with one or two government members rather than any sort of political cohesiveness, and I think we can all agree that wasn't the greatest decision in the world. It's not one I intend to repeat. (Please note, Pacificans, that this isn't meant as "Signing treaties with NPO is bad because they were evil" so much as an acknowledgment that particular treaty was probably not a good idea as demonstrated by the subsequent handling of it. We may have followed the defense clause to the letter but that doesn't mean I'm happy with how it played out). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 An ally is an ally, your feelings do not come into play if you've made an agreement to defend them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage3 Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 My philosophy is like this: The time to convince my alliance to sever ties is before hostilities. The time to not be supportive of the alliance I dislike is at that time. However... Once we roll, we roll. Period. Because in my mind it is no longer about the alliance we defend or about politics. At that time my fellow Rokkers depend on me to follow my agreements and promises to THEM. To refuse harms THEM, not necessarily the alliance that we are aiding. Every target in my range that avoids Anarchy and devastation even a DAY is MY FAULT. Every nuke I can eat and don't, my FAIL. I could not look my fellow Warriors in the face if I left them forsaken for even a day because of my personal ideas or opinions. Rok > Rokkers > Self Just my take...good question BTW. 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.