FOK! announcement

[oinkoink12]

On a more serious note, we cancelled the treaty because we felt we couldnt honor it.

That doesnt mean we cant still be friends, I hold TOP in a very high regard and if planet bob will shift another phaze I'll be the first one to try to get this treaty back.

o/ TOP

[Fantastico]

On a more serious note, we cancelled the treaty because we felt we couldnt honor it.

That doesnt mean we cant still be friends, I hold TOP in a very high regard and if planet bob will shift another phaze I'll be the first one to try to get this treaty back.

o/ TOP

I thought TOP was supposed to be the alliance that puts a wet finger to the wind?

How misled I have been.

[President Obama]

I thought TOP was supposed to be the alliance that puts a wet finger to the wind?

How misled I have been.

That isn't what he meant. Stop twisting his words.

I share your sentiments oinkoink.

[Fantastico]

That isn't what he meant.

Okay, good to know this.

[KingEd]

On a more serious note, we cancelled the treaty because we felt we couldnt honor it.

That doesnt mean we cant still be friends, I hold TOP in a very high regard and if planet bob will shift another phaze I'll be the first one to try to get this treaty back.

o/ TOP

If you can't honor this treaty now, what makes you think that you'll be able to honor a new treaty down the line ? As it stands, politically, what you have suggested is impossible and will probably remain impossible even if BOB shifts phase.

Edited January 20, 2010 by KingEd

[Some-Guy]

On a more serious note, we cancelled the treaty because we felt we couldnt honor it...

I figure that we could all take a leaf from this book, if one party feels that a parting of ways is likely, best to part ways during peace time on good terms rather than in the build up or in the middle of a war which leaves every one bitter.

o/ TOP

o/ FOK.

[flak attack]

If you can't honor this treaty now, what makes you think that you'll be able to honor a new treaty down the line ? As it stands, politically, what you have suggested is impossible and will probably remain impossible even if BOB shifts phase.

If their FA policies start to line up again, I can't think of any reason they can't.

Edited January 20, 2010 by flak attack

[KingEd]

If their FA policies start to line up again, I can't think of any reason they can't.

You are quite the optimist there; If the many predictions I've heard in this thread come to pass, and TOP gets "rolled", then I'll doubt they want to see any of the faces which left them while having the power to positively support them and avoid any harm to come to TOP.

[Fantastico]

If their FA policies start to line up again, I can't think of any reason they can't.

Also good to know this.

[Hayzell]

I love how random ideas get mentioned, then become "fact," and are then used to draw ridiculous conclusions and/or propositions.

-Craig

In this instance it is a fact that at least part of the reason FOK cancelled was because TOP did not capitulate to the request that we cancel our treaty with IRON. Presumably, RnR will cancel its treaty with IRON, in order to establish this more unified FA path FOK is aiming for. I see nothing ridiculous about that conclusion; if one assumes FOK and RnR are inseparable and that FOK will be consistent, then it certainly does make sense.

[Tromp]

In this instance it is a fact that at least part of the reason FOK cancelled was because TOP did not capitulate to the request that we cancel our treaty with IRON. Presumably, RnR will cancel its treaty with IRON, in order to establish this more unified FA path FOK is aiming for. I see nothing ridiculous about that conclusion; if one assumes FOK and RnR are inseparable and that FOK will be consistent, then it certainly does make sense.

Just to set this straight: in no way was the request you speak of our sole motivator for cancelling this treaty, as has been communicated to the GA of TOP. So no, it doesn't make sense at all.

[Hayzell]

Just to set this straight: in no way was the request you speak of our sole motivator for cancelling this treaty, as has been communicated to the GA of TOP. So no, it doesn't make sense at all.

I did not say it was the sole motivator, but to say it played no role is just disingenuous on the face of it. Why would you care who we were allied to if you had intentions to cancel on us regardless? It is obvious that IRON was a significant factor in the cancellation. The broader picture is FOK's desire to have a unified FA, sure, but it has become very clear this includes not being tied to IRON at all.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Hayzell

[Tromp]

I did not say it was the sole motivator, but to say it played no role is just disingenuous on the face of it.

And I never claimed as such.

It was a minor hint of mine to TOPpers to reread the explanation given by FOK govt though, as some do seem to think it was the sole reason.

For further clarification, one can always contact us ofcourse.

[Saber]

Again, we aren't dropping new allies for old allies. We are dropping for the reasons in the opening-post. Since you are mentioning time-length:

R&R was signed on August 4, 2007, TOP MDoAP was signed on 28 August, 2007. LEO was signed in October 28, 2007 (before the unjust war).

Most of our treaties are quite old, but these are the oldest.

I do seem to recall us having a protectorate agreement prior to MDP. How far back I don't remember, but I am pretty sure we did not start with a MDoAP. But that's beside the point, alliances change and grow apart.

On a more serious note, we cancelled the treaty because we felt we couldnt honor it.

That doesnt mean we cant still be friends, I hold TOP in a very high regard and if planet bob will shift another phaze I'll be the first one to try to get this treaty back.

o/ TOP

Thanks for being honest and clear. If you feel you can't honor our treaty you are right to cancel it. I wish you all the best, I hope you like it wherever you are headed.

For anyone thinking TOP will be curbstomped I am telling you to come and try. We're very accommodating when it comes to putting people in their spot.

Paradoxians, lock and load!

Edited January 21, 2010 by Saber

[ROMMELHSQ]

I do seem to recall us having a protectorate agreement prior to MDP. How far back I don't remember, but I am pretty sure we did not start with a MDoAP. But that's beside the point, alliances change and grow apart.

no Saber, we didn't start with a protectorate. We started with a full MDP.

Edited January 21, 2010 by ROMMELHSQ

[Saber]

no Saber, we didn't

Sure of that? My bad then.

I do have one more statement though. TOP has experience with allies on two sides. However our solution was not to cancel on our friends and let one side beat the other. We always tried to keep peace between them and succeeded for a very long time. I do believe this is the way to go as cancellation is akin to giving up. However I understand frustration of trying to keep people behave nicely to each other. It got us some of the bad rep we have (Gremlins took us for NPO fanboys, and NPO took us for Gremlin defenders and similar). But for as long as we could keep it up. Both sides prospered.

[Micheal Malone]

Sure of that? My bad then.

I do have one more statement though. TOP has experience with allies on two sides. However our solution was not to cancel on our friends and let one side beat the other. We always tried to keep peace between them and succeeded for a very long time. I do believe this is the way to go as cancellation is akin to giving up. However I understand frustration of trying to keep people behave nicely to each other. It got us some of the bad rep we have (Gremlins took us for NPO fanboys, and NPO took us for Gremlin defenders and similar). But for as long as we could keep it up. Both sides prospered.

It's also one of the reasons TOP has the "War By Proxy" reputation. I don't claim to speak for FOK, but I know that many of the members play this game to have fun. And part of having fun is war. With the WWE, they were going to be put in a sitcky situation of spreading themselves too thin, or not participating in the war. Neither are "fun options". They chose the option of spreading themselves to thin by fighting on both sides if needed, just so they could honor all treaties. I'm sure that situation had a wake-up call to re-examine the FA strategy they had been following.

[Saber]

It's also one of the reasons TOP has the "War By Proxy" reputation. I don't claim to speak for FOK, but I know that many of the members play this game to have fun. And part of having fun is war. With the WWE, they were going to be put in a sitcky situation of spreading themselves too thin, or not participating in the war. Neither are "fun options". They chose the option of spreading themselves to thin by fighting on both sides if needed, just so they could honor all treaties. I'm sure that situation had a wake-up call to re-examine the FA strategy they had been following.

It's essentially quite simple. You decide is CB valid or not and then you act upon it. One side or the other obviously won't be happy but at least you will do what you think is right. Without a treaty you essentially give up on one side and give free hand to the other side. I don't think there is any negating this.

I hope am sure motives here were more noble.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Saber

[Lord Brendan]

It's essentially quite simple. You decide is CB valid or not and then you act upon it. One side or the other obviously won't be happy but at least you will do what you think is right. Without a treaty you essentially give up on one side and give free hand to the other side. I don't think there is any negating this.

I hope am sure motives here were more noble.

So your strategy is that you should always have treaties with both sides and then honor the ones with those on the 'right' side?

That's absurd if you ask me. If you get to the point where you have to choose between treaty partners during war-time, you've made a massive error somewhere along the line. A clear and concise FA direction should be every alliance's goal.

So congratulations FOK on working towards that, even if means canceling old treaties.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Saber]

So your strategy is that you should always have treaties with both sides and then honor the ones with those on the 'right' side?

That's absurd if you ask me. If you get to the point where you have to choose between treaty partners during war-time, you've made a massive error somewhere along the line. A clear and concise FA direction should be every alliance's goal.

So congratulations FOK on working towards that, even if means canceling old treaties.

No. But if you have friends on two sides than having treaty with both does make sense. That way friend who is a victim can be defended rather than you abandoning it and allowing your other friend to do whatever he wants.

*I hate metaphors*

Clear and concise FA direction? Is this new CN meme? Did we drop friends > infra and changed it to "clear and concise FA > friends"? Seriously? Whole hypocrisy of CN community is coming to new levels.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Saber

[Lord Brendan]

No. But if you have friends on two sides than having treaty with both does make sense. That way friend who is a victim can be defended rather than you abandoning it and allowing your other friend to do whatever he wants.

*I hate metaphors*

You can only fight for one side.

[Saber]

You can only fight for one side.

People always talk about not helping the aggressors. Yes, you can't fight for two sides (well yes you can but let's ignore that) but you don't need to. You just fight for the friend who is a victim. Isn't that famous friends > infra?

[WarriorConcept]

No. But if you have friends on two sides than having treaty with both does make sense. That way friend who is a victim can be defended rather than you abandoning it and allowing your other friend to do whatever he wants.

*I hate metaphors*

Clear and concise FA direction? Is this new CN meme? Did we drop friends > infra and changed it to "clear and concise FA > friends"? Seriously? Whole hypocrisy of CN community is coming to new levels.

I don't think alliances want to make choices during any war between 2 "sides" when and if they come up. Doing so is generally degrading to their reputation and leaves them with a fleeting sense of resentment from the side that they didn't help.

[Lord Brendan]

People always talk about not helping the aggressors. Yes, you can't fight for two sides (well yes you can but let's ignore that) but you don't need to. You just fight for the friend who is a victim. Isn't that famous friends > infra?

If you are fighting for the friend who is the defender, then you are fighting for that side, and therefore not helping your friend on the other side. Meaning you have a broken treaty, in spirit if not in letter.

And that is a failure as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't want to be in an alliance that doesn't know exactly where it will stand if !@#$ hits the fan.

[Delta1212]

Clear and concise FA direction? Is this new CN meme? Did we drop friends > infra and changed it to "clear and concise FA > friends"? Seriously? Whole hypocrisy of CN community is coming to new levels.

Technically speaking, everyone would have to have claimed that a clear and concise FA direction was undesirable and then reversed to claiming it was a good thing in this instance for it to be hypocrisy. I can't recall that ever being the case and am pretty sure people have been congratulated for lining up an uncomplicated FA policy for themselves for quite a while. It's not always a common move for people to unravel knots in their FA during peace time, so the compliment doesn't really get heard a lot, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist until this week. To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard enough of an uptick in its use recently for it to be considered a meme unless people saying it in this thread a lot counts.