Rebel Virginia Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 We made it public that we have removed ourselves from the DoN for harrassing an ally as it is our policy to announce such things. That does not require detailed logs, screenshots, and other proof of why we did so. I understand and accept the curiosity, I do not accept demands or requests for more information from uninvolved parties. For removing your signature from a DoN you do not need a reason, nor do you need one for war. Although I can only hope that you will see the wisdom in providing evidence when you do inevitably attack. Just know that as withholding evidence and claiming that your word is good did not work for the last people who tried it, I can only assure you that it will not for you either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 For removing your signature from a DoN you do not need a reason, nor do you need one for war. Although I can only hope that you will see the wisdom in providing evidence when you do inevitably attack. Just know that as withholding evidence and claiming that your word is good did not work for the last people who tried it, I can only assure you that it will not for you either. I doubt this will lead to war and that's certainly not Ragnarok's intent. Should I be wrong, then yes ... evidence would be provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 I doubt this will lead to war and that's certainly not Ragnarok's intent. Should I be wrong, then yes ... evidence would be provided. So, RoK has no interest in doing anything then? I mean, you demand something from TDO and then think canceling a treaty will mean something? I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Um, proof? You dare question the Hoo? Anyway, TDO, for shame, harassing people is bad. It sounds like you need some introspection, an internal vacation? Otherwise well, really, you don't want to go through what GPA went through. It's not pretty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 (edited) So, RoK has no interest in doing anything then? I mean, you demand something from TDO and then think canceling a treaty will mean something? I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. We haven't made any demands, ADI has. As I stated before, even if TDO resolved this on day one we'd still be cancelling due to repeated acts against our ally. Edited December 4, 2009 by Van Hoo III Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ome Harry Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Unclog the ugly treatyweb. Go RoK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Hoo...you evil !@#$%^&. Devilishly handsome evil !@#$%^&. Also...good move for all parties. Everyone complains about the treaty web and how useless treaties are...and yet people encounter resistance when someone cancels one of the more egregious examples of "worthless" treaties. Good luck working this out peacefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Metternich Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 For removing your signature from a DoN you do not need a reason, nor do you need one for war. Although I can only hope that you will see the wisdom in providing evidence when you do inevitably attack. Just know that as withholding evidence and claiming that your word is good did not work for the last people who tried it, I can only assure you that it will not for you either. Those that need the evidence have the evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 No Goriathor of the Greenland Republic ... you are not involved and therefore no one is required to prove anything to you nor is there a need for you to be privy to such information.I know this won't be popular, but I find it laughable when people that have nothing to do with any of the alliances involved start demanding proof as if it is their right. Get your drama fix elsewhere and just know that we've removed our names from this document for good reason. If you do not believe that, then that is your issue and not ours. This post should be repeated everytime someone demands proof for something they have no buisness demanding proof of. hell lets just split it from the topic and sticky it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 This post should be repeated everytime someone demands proof for something they have no buisness demanding proof of. hell lets just split it from the topic and sticky it Not that I disagree or am singling you in particular out, but watching people express this sentiment now is just hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Chill I Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Not that I disagree or am singling you in particular out, but watching people express this sentiment now is just hilarious. Coke and Pepsi bro Coke and Pepsi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...on+agency\IPA on NATO Also: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=31403 PPO on ACV PPO has first Awckwa (on purpose, i'm spelling it like that from now on) on Awckwa War, IPA has number 2. Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet but in case they haven't; When PPO declared on us they were multi-colored. They became Aqua shortly after they became our protectorate. (Us and our in the past tense.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Coke and Pepsi bro Coke and Pepsi. Do tell me when the last time i demanded logs, screenshots, etc of something that didnt involve me? didnt think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Do tell me when the last time i demanded logs, screenshots, etc of something that didnt involve me? didnt think so. <@WickedJ[CSN]> I demand logs, screenshots (etc) of the internal business of GPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 <@WickedJ[CSN]> I demand logs, screenshots (etc) of the internal business of GPA. brb cancelling Corp treaty, expect a DoW in 48 hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balder Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Brb, telling allies that WickedJ may accidentally nuke them thinking its us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Silly people, you call for peace and evidence at the same time. You know peace is easier to accomplish via private channels. As Hoo said, if it comes to war then evidence will be presented, and there is plenty of it for the issue had been going on several months. ADI has repeatedly requested during that time that TDO simply stop. That's all, just stop. RoK requested it as well, TDO never did anything about it, and that's why we're here today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Well there are many thruth's that are indisputable in this thread.... TDO should go get friends...fast... Either way/// the last truth is Neutrality doesn't work in CN, just makes you a bigger target. 'Getting Allies' wouldn't protect TDO from war if RoK wanted war. Edited December 5, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Silly people, you call for peace and evidence at the same time. You know peace is easier to accomplish via private channels. As Hoo said, if it comes to war then evidence will be presented, and there is plenty of it for the issue had been going on several months. ADI has repeatedly requested during that time that TDO simply stop. That's all, just stop. RoK requested it as well, TDO never did anything about it, and that's why we're here today. FEAR pelted my dog with rocks. But I don't intend on pursuing war, so I won't bother proving this claim. I just want everyone to know that FEAR threw rocks at my dog. Do I have to continue or do we all understand why that logic is stupid now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) FEAR pelted my dog with rocks. But I don't intend on pursuing war, so I won't bother proving this claim. I just want everyone to know that FEAR threw rocks at my dog.Do I have to continue or do we all understand why that logic is stupid now? No, pretty sure it's your logic that's flawed. RoK is no longer happy with TDO. They just say "we're not friends anymore." A person from another city comes running down the street saying "IT'S BECAUSE THEIR DOG WAS PELTED BY TDO. I HEARD SOMEONE SAY SO." So now RoK has to come up with proof that their dog was pelted by TDO upon request? Edited December 5, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 No, pretty sure it's your logic that's flawed. RoK is no longer happy with TDO. They just say "we're not friends anymore." A person from another city comes running down the street saying "IT'S BECAUSE THEIR DOG WAS PELTED BY TDO. I HEARD SOMEONE SAY SO." So now RoK has to come up with proof that their dog was pelted by TDO upon request? Well that would be preferable to the passive aggressiveness that actually constitutes this announcement. It would also help your point if a few FEAR members hadn't continued those vague passive aggressive assertions. So more like "We disapprove of TDO mistreating our animals" and then being indignant when people ask for details about said mistreatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) Well that would be preferable to the passive aggressiveness that actually constitutes this announcement. It would also help your point if a few FEAR members hadn't continued those vague passive aggressive assertions.So more like "We disapprove of TDO mistreating our animals" and then being indignant when people ask for details about said mistreatment. First of all, it's not really FEAR's place. It's not our evidence. Secondly, this doesn't change the fact that asking for peace and evidence/arguments to be made public, is silly. EDIT: To clarify, asking for peace alone, or evidence alone, is not silly. It's when you're asking for both at the same time. Edited December 5, 2009 by Canik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 (edited) First of all, it's not really FEAR's place. It's not our evidence.Secondly, this doesn't change the fact that asking for peace and evidence/arguments to be made public, is silly. All of that may well be true, but I tend to believe you should either make an accusation or not. If it's not your place to make an accusation, then don't. But don't make vague passive aggressive allusions to an accusation, which is what some of your compatriots have been doing and, indeed, what this announcement did. I don't really doubt that TDO deserved this, as it's not news to me that they're a bit lacking in diplomatic competence, but the indignant responses to queries for my information after presenting something in such a way as to invite curiosity is just as silly as the feelings of entitlement some have for knowledge. As for your edit, that doesn't make any sense on its own, and goes back to my earlier example. Edited December 5, 2009 by Heft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 All of that may well be true, but I tend to believe you should either make an accusation or not. If it's not your place to make an accusation, then don't. But don't make vague passive aggressive allusions to an accusation, which is what some of your compatriots have been doing and, indeed, what this announcement did.I don't really doubt that TDO deserved this, as it's not news to me that they're a bit lacking in diplomatic competence, but the indignant responses to queries for my information after presenting something in such a way as to invite curiosity is just as silly as the feelings of entitlement some have for knowledge. As for your edit, that doesn't make any sense on its own, and goes back to my earlier example. It's quite simple: private channels FTW. Anyway, I understand where you are coming from but disagree that if someone makes a cancellation that they need to explain why to anyone but the people they are canceling on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 What is it that makes a man go neutral anyways...? Also, A. Mindless hail B. Expression of outrage You decide. 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.