Starbuck Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 This is a first. I guess when push comes to shove, you'll find out who your friends are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenwillthisend Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 The major problem with this is that although they can choose who they like and want to defend, there is no "legitimate" way that those friends can help them.Great way to put them in the position of forcing this policy on them as well since they'd have to "Moldavi" (for lack of a better term) their way into any defense of you. I'm glad you guys are following your muse and all but you've done nothing but make the political realities more difficult for your "friends" through selfishness. I don't get it. Anyone has the right to defend their friends in times of war. Just like anyone can aid and trade with whoever they like. We are not forcing anyone to go the same route as us. We are taking control of our alliance and FA the WE feel we should, not the way CN thinks we should. There is no law stating that we MUST be treatied by a piece of paper to be able to defend our friends or vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I don't get it.Anyone has the right to defend their friends in times of war. Just like anyone can aid and trade with whoever they like. We are not forcing anyone to go the same route as us. We are taking control of our alliance and FA the WE feel we should, not the way CN thinks we should. There is no law stating that we MUST be treatied by a piece of paper to be able to defend our friends or vice versa. It doesn't matter what you say, people will still say that you must have the paper. <3 Gremlins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 The major problem with this is that although they can choose who they like and want to defend, there is no "legitimate" way that those friends can help them. Uhh what? Every sovereign has always and will always retain the right to intervene when they believe it is called for. Treaties limit options, not the othere way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenwillthisend Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Well, we have decided to change the game. Come join us MK we can be Paperless together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Everyone has talked about this, but nobody has ever done it. Thanks for being the first Grämlins. IRON, VE, FAN, probably others. It's been done before to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success. Not to denigrate Gremlins or anything, it is a bold move, even if they still retain the MHA treaty, and it is certainly rare, but it's not without precedent by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Uhh what? Every sovereign has always and will always retain the right to intervene when they believe it is called for. Treaties limit options, not the othere way around. Which is true, but then they lose the "protection" that honoring a treaty comes with. It would be impossible to claim that you are defending an ally and limit the non-chaining clauses of treaties involved. Of course any alliance can do whatever they want. The system of treaties is in place to ensure there isn't just a melee of random wars. If you want that, great! Let's just disband all alliances and have the entirety of our community here. After all, the claim in the OP is that pieces of paper don't mean anything, so your charter or their codex doesn't mean anything either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Ratz Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 The way I see this is that Graemlins has just surrendered its foreign policy sovereignty to MHA. MHA still maintains treaties, but Graemlins does not, so informal decisions by Graemlins are superseded by the treaties binding MHA and binding Graemlins to MHA.So as of this moment: Mushroom Kingdom Argent Umbrella Fark FOK Of these few, Umbrella is bound via MDP with MHA. Fark has a MDoAP with MHA. Argent, FOK, and Mushroom Kingdom no longer have any ties to Graemlins. The previous treaty cancellation with TOP is covered by an MDoAP with MHA. So the way I see it, it's a stealth downgrading of Graemlins' ties to Mushroom Kingdom, Argent, and FOK. This is interesting and I think lays out the true plans here. Regardless I wish Gramlins the best of luck in their new FA policy. We will see what happens tho... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Now if only everyone could follow your lead.What's stopping you?IRON, VE, FAN, probably others. It's been done before to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success. Not to denigrate Gremlins or anything, it is a bold move, even if they still retain the MHA treaty, and it is certainly rare, but it's not without precedent by any means.No one's ever done it for our reason.Hey, I meant to tell you, next time you see Ivan (months from now I'm sure), tell him I'm glad he implemented my idea, even if he did call it the "Moldavi" Doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Everyone has talked about this, but nobody has ever done it. Thanks for being the first Grämlins. I think you forgot FAN, and OcUK, who both only held a treaty with each other that was a defunct bloc, and was canceled before this. However, I do like to see that people have followed their example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) EDIT: DOUBLE POST Edited January 17, 2010 by Earogema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 No one's ever done it for our reason.Hey, I meant to tell you, next time you see Ivan (months from now I'm sure), tell him I'm glad he implemented my idea, even if he did call it the "Moldavi" Doctrine. Okay, so what is your reason? And I'll be sure to get on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) Now if only everyone could follow your lead. Everyone could. Few would. Cult of Justitia already adheres to a policy against compulsive treaties and only very limited amounts of optional treaties. We're small but we're fine and I like it; it's comfortable. I can wiggle all every-which-way and we do what we want without caring if we're going to lose a friend/treaty. Welcome to sovereignty, Gremlins, let me know how if you like it, too! Edited January 17, 2010 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I would like to see you try. How about you try it and see what happens? it's not like they could attack me Unless they grab someone from MHA to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainImpavid Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I resent the implication that the treaty i wrote for Fark/Gre was poorly written. I accept scones and other assorted baked goods as appropriate means of apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenwillthisend Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 it's not like they could attack me Unless they grab someone from MHA to... We have 1 or 2 nations in your range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Havn't bothered to check but I would assume with the steady decrease in nation listings within Gramlins I would say you guys havnt recruited much at all so you are still made up of nations of rather high NS value? So really you don't have all that much to worry about when it comes to aggression upon you and this gives you more say in when you fight and when you don't correct? Good choice for The Gramlins, will be interesting to see what other alliances if any think they can thrive with a similiar FA choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 BTW, Shame on you for cancelling on Fark..that car was epic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamacus Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Good luck in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) The major problem with this is that although they can choose who they like and want to defend, there is no "legitimate" way that those friends can help them.Great way to put them in the position of forcing this policy on them as well since they'd have to "Moldavi" (for lack of a better term) their way into any defense of you. I'm glad you guys are following your muse and all but you've done nothing but make the political realities more difficult for your "friends" through selfishness. While many people will, undoubtedly, approve The Grämlins in this day and say they have a sovereign right to declare on whoever or in whoever's defense, what will be interesting to see is how it will play out in a real conflict. The crowd clamors for less treaties but each opportunity to strike will be exploited; I can easily imagine a good number of alliances willing to attack the Grämlins should they enter on someone's side (save for MHA) during a global war. The only difference is that, with their firepower, they might scare off a couple vultures, just like FAN has. Good on them but the treatyless path has its hardships and you're absolutely right to point out that many alliances feel and will feel uneasy to help them should a major war occurs. With all the conflicting treaties already in place, ignoring a paperless friendship might be convenient to some. Edited January 17, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scutterbug Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 What an absolute load of rubbish. Whilst it could be seen as noble or honourable you make this move. How many of your ex treaty partners do you expect to come to your aid in a time of war should you need it. Now they are no longer obligated to do so? Friendship is a rare thing to find on planet Bob and somehow I see this as only screwing yourself over. Token answer to the haters in MHA that think i shouldn't post my views on the OWF, eat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson76 Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 While many people will, undoubtedly, approve The Grämlins in this day and say they have a sovereign right to declare on whoever or in whoever's defense, what will be interesting to see is how it will play out in a real conflict.The crowd clamors for less treaties but each opportunity to strike will be exploited; I can easily imagine a good number of alliances willing to attack the Grämlins should they enter on someone's side (save for MHA) during a global war. The only difference is that, with their firepower, they might scare off a couple vultures, just like FAN has. Good on them but the treatyless path has its hardships and you're absolutely right to point out that many alliances feel and will feel uneasy to help them should a major war occurs. With all the conflicting treaties already in place, ignoring a paperless friendship might be convenient to some. Thank you for seeing at least most of my point. The concern I have is not for Gramlins, they are BIG boys and girls and made their own decision. The concern I have with this edict is the pressure it puts on their friends that will be put in an indefensible situation should they support a move made by the Gramlins. If they indeed declare on someone who is attacking Gramlins they will be engaging in an offensive war as they have no treaty obligating them. This will make it hard for them to rally support from anyone other than their ODP partners unless everyone is just supposed to do what they want, in which case, as I said before, tear up your charters people. Now I don't claim to be an expert on the Gramlins, but from what I've gathered, they put great stock in their codex. But apparently, they expect everyone else to ignore the official ties that bind us. I'm no fan of the treaty web and it's conflicts, but treaties themselves provide a framework for the political engagement that makes this world go 'round. If we scrap treaties all together we get an even more confusing and stagnant situation than we have now since every time there's a war people will just gangbang the unfortunate soul who gets declared on first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Thank you for seeing at least most of my point. The concern I have is not for Gramlins, they are BIG boys and girls and made their own decision. The concern I have with this edict is the pressure it puts on their friends that will be put in an indefensible situation should they support a move made by the Gramlins. If they indeed declare on someone who is attacking Gramlins they will be engaging in an offensive war as they have no treaty obligating them. No, no, again no. An aggressive war is an aggressive war, a defensive war is a defensive war, it has to do with who commits the first act of war, it has nothing to do with who is treatied to whom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Bold move Gre. Keep on truckin'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wenwillthisend Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Thank you for seeing at least most of my point. The concern I have is not for Gramlins, they are BIG boys and girls and made their own decision. The concern I have with this edict is the pressure it puts on their friends that will be put in an indefensible situation should they support a move made by the Gramlins. If they indeed declare on someone who is attacking Gramlins they will be engaging in an offensive war as they have no treaty obligating them. This will make it hard for them to rally support from anyone other than their ODP partners unless everyone is just supposed to do what they want, in which case, as I said before, tear up your charters people. Now I don't claim to be an expert on the Gramlins, but from what I've gathered, they put great stock in their codex. But apparently, they expect everyone else to ignore the official ties that bind us. I'm no fan of the treaty web and it's conflicts, but treaties themselves provide a framework for the political engagement that makes this world go 'round. If we scrap treaties all together we get an even more confusing and stagnant situation than we have now since every time there's a war people will just gangbang the unfortunate soul who gets declared on first. If someone attacks us then we are on the defensive, thus anyone that comes to our aid is defending us. You will not be able to e-lawyer this as e-lawyering is bogus and has no right in CN. 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.