Vanguard Edict

[Earogema]

Of course it matter, Grub waived the obligation to our allies defend us, so only those who really support and believe in our cause will join.

Okay it does matter, my bad

I was saying how the waive doesn't prevent your allies from coming in though, as opposed to Seerow's point of view that the waive is the end all of the situation.

[Earogema]

How does a treaty bloc get picked off one by one? That makes absolutely no sense. They would have had to be picked off all at the same time.

They didn't defend ONOS. ONOS asked that GUARD not defend them.

This was back when WUT ruled the world. You couldn't really fight that, and people hadn't grown balls yet.

[Branimir]

For the same reason of FOK joined the war? Friends aren't those who are obligated to help you but those who voluntarily helps you.

Actually, they joined in after the initial request to keep this limited, was not fallowed and FOK went in guns blazing.

NSO respected NpO's decision to keep it limited and did not join the original conflict towards which the request was directed. Once FOK joined, obviously enough, conditions changed and NSO had treaties to hold.

Calling NSO out for escalating things, is ridiculous.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Branimir

[Vilien]

I'm reassured to see that MK and Vanguard have stated that they won't be entering this war against Polaris. Otherwise, signing a treaty with a bloc is an interesting precedent.

[Rebel Virginia]

1) And when the opportunity arose they could be beat down again. Preferably not by someone who is directly allied to one of their allies. After this war I won't be surprised to see \m/ left treatiless and isolated, but for pride nobody is going to cancel mid-war. After all thats bad PR, and who can afford that?

2) You continue to use the phase 'dictating terms'. This isn't dictating terms but a matter of wording that has no real effect on the meaning of what is being said.

1.) A slap on the wrist is no punishment at all? So we're supposed to wait for them to do it again? I don't think so.

2.) The wording is everything.

[Earogema]

You assume incorrect and draw incorrect conclusions from your false assumptions. Polaris does not tell our allies who to make friends with, they make their own decisions and go where they must. We had diplomatic contact with Ragnarok throughout the lead up to the war and understand that they have no treaty obligations to defend us through this one.

Further, you can have a "terrible attitude" all you want as long as you can muster the restraint to not raid alliances.

But the point is we did muster ourselves to the raid and Rok still maintains the treaty with us.

I mean, it just seems silly. If let's say- TPF attacks \m/, Rok would come in, and whoever attacks Rok would have to be countered by Polar.

And yes, I realize Rok goes where it wills, and I realize that Polar does the same. STA was wise enough to cancel on NSO before NSO went in with IRON. I'm just saying, if one wanted to avoid this ideological problem, you would have canceled on Rok.

[HeinousOne]

I was trying to avoid all this public talk with STA, since I've apologized and attempted to explain to both Jyrinx and Uhtred over the timing of this, but this I can't ignore.

You're spewing absolute !@#$%^&*. As I recall situations in the past, this is the first one where STA and ourselves find each other on opposing sides. Remember that little tussle when DF called out NSO, and we all thought that was going to war. Do you remember who we backed? That's right, STA (as we didn't care for NSO, which I believe we made clear on several occasions). And we would have been rolled for it as well. I qualify that as getting into some hot stuff, don't you?

Well let me point out that you explained to Jyrinx and Uhtred, not me. So kindly $%&@ off, I am simply stating my own opinion.

So let me talk about the absolute !@#$%^&* you are spewing since you so generously provided those terms to use in this little debate of ours.

Does this timing of this treaty signing have something to do with you "going into the hotzone" for us before in a situation that you did not like? I brought up a very focused subject and that being the timing of the signing of this treaty and you want to expand and dilute the debate by bringing up some other issue from the past? Did that issue affect the decision making of this issue? If it didn't then it doesn't !@#$@#$ matter, understand?

In the end you are saying STA has a friendship that causes you to see STA as a convenient friend if they land on your side but one that you can cast aside if need be due to your other ties that keep you plenty safe. How is that for some absolute !@#$%^&*? I wanted to give some reason to your words.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

If we rushed out an MADP with NSO right in the middle of a brewing World War right after they attacked FoB what would you think? Oh but of course we were working on it for months! You cannot possibly expect us to hold off on it in order to fully stand by our Previous agreements with other alliances. I am sorry but we would have to properly show our beliefs now that this brand new spanking treaty means so much to us that it is going to cause us to not fulfill some obligations of previous treaties of the past that no longer seem to quite have the meaning they might have when signed.

If it were me, I would be miffed (understandably so). The timing is not what you would call perfect, and it was a poor decision on Vanguard's part to post it instead of postponing it for a later date.

[HeinousOne]

They didn't defend ONOS. ONOS asked that GUARD not defend them.

This was back when WUT ruled the world. You couldn't really fight that, and people hadn't grown balls yet.

Well then, I think they signed their own death certificate by isolating themselves in a bloc and then isolating themselves within that bloc. Stupid decision making on their part, but that is here nor there when concerning the rest of the conversation here.

[omfghi2u2]

Well let me point out that you explained to Jyrinx and Uhtred, not me. So kindly $%&@ off, I am simply stating my own opinion.

So let me talk about the absolute !@#$%^&* you are spewing since you so generously provided those terms to use in this little debate of ours.

Does this timing of this treaty signing have something to do with you "going into the hotzone" for us before in a situation that you did not like? I brought up a very focused subject and that being the timing of the signing of this treaty and you want to expand and dilute the debate by bringing up some other issue from the past? Did that issue affect the decision making of this issue? If it didn't then it doesn't !@#$@#$ matter, understand?

In the end you are saying STA has a friendship that causes you to see STA as a convenient friend if they land on your side but one that you can cast aside if need be due to your other ties that keep you plenty safe. How is that for some absolute !@#$%^&*? I wanted to give some reason to your words.

Please remember that Vanguard is still our allies. And even if they werent, at least he went out of his way to explain to Jyrinx and Uhtred. If it is a personal issue you have with Rafael, then take it to IRC. Otherwise, this is making both of our alliances look bad.

-omfg

[D34th]

Actually, they joined in after the initial request to keep this limited, was not fallowed and FOK went in guns blazing.

NSO respected NpO's decision to keep it limited and did not join the original conflict towards which the request was directed. Once FOK joined, obviously enough, conditions changed and NSO had treaties to hold.

Calling NSO out for escalating things, is ridiculous.

It isn't what I said

[Micheal Malone]

Actually, they joined in after the initial request to keep this limited, was not fallowed and FOK went in guns blazing.

NSO respected NpO's decision to keep it limited and did not join the original conflict towards which the request was directed. Once FOK joined, obviously enough, conditions changed and NSO had treaties to hold.

Calling NSO out for escalating things, is ridiculous.

Because \m/, PC, and FOK had more NS & Nukes than Polar, amirite? It would have been a unilateral curbstomp at this point? Is that why NSO joined in? Or was it because it STOPPED being a curb-stomp?

Edit for clarity of my point

Edited January 25, 2010 by Micheal Malone

[Seerow]

Okay it does matter, my bad

I was saying how the waive doesn't prevent your allies from coming in though, as opposed to Seerow's point of view that the waive is the end all of the situation.

I never said it was the end all of the situation. However it does cease us from having any obligation to defend NpO. Archon may still choose to do so, but given the current choices are PC (allied to our MADP partner) and FOK (MDoAPed to us) that seems unlikely. We may also choose to defend FOK from NSO which seems more likely, but ultimately a waste of our efforts. We could choose to attack NpO because Athens goes in on an oA clause with PC to hit NpO and we roll with Athens, however that situation is even more unlikely, as waiving the treaties doesn't waive the idea that you don't attack an ally.

The point really is we have multiple points of entry, but we have no obligation to be helping NpO at this time. If more of our allies end up on NpOs side it becomes increasingly likely we end up there, the possibility also arises for us to be on the other side, we have the treaties available with or without this treaty to get in pretty much wherever we want.

That said for those saying we got to this position by signing too many treaties, I agree with you. I campaigned heavily internally that we have far too many treaties and wanted to trim down significantly. But I ultimately have no more say in our FA strategy than I do in our Military strategy (that is to say none), so it fell on deaf ears. But just because we have conflicting treaty obligations at the moment doesn't mean I won't try to make some sort of sense out of the situation we have at hand.

[LiquidMercury]

But the point is we did muster ourselves to the raid and Rok still maintains the treaty with us.

I mean, it just seems silly. If let's say- TPF attacks \m/, Rok would come in, and whoever attacks Rok would have to be countered by Polar.

And yes, I realize Rok goes where it wills, and I realize that Polar does the same. STA was wise enough to cancel on NSO before NSO went in with IRON. I'm just saying, if one wanted to avoid this ideological problem, you would have canceled on Rok.

Actually polaris wouldn't have to counter RoK since their treaties don't chain (not positive on this but I assume so). Now, whether people choose to chain things together, is always the issue at hand. Personally I'd say chaining should be viewed as an oA as they are not required to take that stance.

[Branimir]

Please remember that Vanguard is still our allies. And even if they werent, at least he went out of his way to explain to Jyrinx and Uhtred. If it is a personal issue you have with Rafael, then take it to IRC. Otherwise, this is making both of our alliances look bad.

-omfg

SILENCING HO

Thats gonna go well,...lawl

[Earogema]

I never said it was the end all of the situation. However it does cease us from having any obligation to defend NpO. Archon may still choose to do so, but given the current choices are PC (allied to our MADP partner) and FOK (MDoAPed to us) that seems unlikely. We may also choose to defend FOK from NSO which seems more likely, but ultimately a waste of our efforts. We could choose to attack NpO because Athens goes in on an oA clause with PC to hit NpO and we roll with Athens, however that situation is even more unlikely, as waiving the treaties doesn't waive the idea that you don't attack an ally.

The point really is we have multiple points of entry, but we have no obligation to be helping NpO at this time. If more of our allies end up on NpOs side it becomes increasingly likely we end up there, the possibility also arises for us to be on the other side, we have the treaties available with or without this treaty to get in pretty much wherever we want.

That said for those saying we got to this position by signing too many treaties, I agree with you. I campaigned heavily internally that we have far too many treaties and wanted to trim down significantly. But I ultimately have no more say in our FA strategy than I do in our Military strategy (that is to say none), so it fell on deaf ears. But just because we have conflicting treaty obligations at the moment doesn't mean I won't try to make some sort of sense out of the situation we have at hand.

That seems fair I guess.

[bzelger]

HO, by the same token we won't have the strength be able to defend allies on both sides of this when they inevitably split.

[omfghi2u2]

SILENCING HO

Thats gonna go well,...lawl

Yeah but at least I tried.

-omfg

edit: I am not trying to silence HO here, I am just asking of him to be more respectful of his responses despite his obvious anger. Tough, but still.

Edited January 25, 2010 by omfghi2u2

[Earogema]

Actually polaris wouldn't have to counter RoK since their treaties don't chain (not positive on this but I assume so). Now, whether people choose to chain things together, is always the issue at hand. Personally I'd say chaining should be viewed as an oA as they are not required to take that stance.

It's just usually how the world works from what I've noticed. Especially of Polar/Rok- alliances that try to muster as many allies as possible when they enter a conflict.

Besides, it could be oA too.

[Rafael Nadal]

Well let me point out that you explained to Jyrinx and Uhtred, not me. So kindly $%&@ off, I am simply stating my own opinion.

So let me talk about the absolute !@#$%^&* you are spewing since you so generously provided those terms to use in this little debate of ours.

Does this timing of this treaty signing have something to do with you "going into the hotzone" for us before in a situation that you did not like? I brought up a very focused subject and that being the timing of the signing of this treaty and you want to expand and dilute the debate by bringing up some other issue from the past? Did that issue affect the decision making of this issue? If it didn't then it doesn't !@#$@#$ matter, understand?

In the end you are saying STA has a friendship that causes you to see STA as a convenient friend if they land on your side but one that you can cast aside if need be due to your other ties that keep you plenty safe. How is that for some absolute !@#$%^&*? I wanted to give some reason to your words.

You brought up that once STA got into hot !@#$, we bailed on you. I merely showed you that STA has been in hot !@#$ in the recent past, and we were there for you. You make it sound like we've never once had your back when it was inconvenient.

Your final statement is applicable to both of us, seeing as neither of us are in the war yet. Should I be pissed that STA is not with us? Well, I'm not. I understand that we're on opposing sides, just as we are with other allies of ours, and I expect both of us to recognize that the fact we're on differing sides has nothing to do with bailing on each other.

That's all I intend to say here. Good luck on your course of actions.

[Penguin]

But the point is we did muster ourselves to the raid and Rok still maintains the treaty with us.

I mean, it just seems silly. If let's say- TPF attacks \m/, Rok would come in, and whoever attacks Rok would have to be countered by Polar.

And yes, I realize Rok goes where it wills, and I realize that Polar does the same. STA was wise enough to cancel on NSO before NSO went in with IRON. I'm just saying, if one wanted to avoid this ideological problem, you would have canceled on Rok.

I've yet to hear Ragnarok state that they support tech raiding 30 member alliances. Until then, I tend to believe we don't have an ideological problem, we just have different obligations.

[HeinousOne]

Edit: Stepping out of the discussion for now. As asked for by a fellow STA member.

Edited January 25, 2010 by HeinousOne

[HeinousOne]

SILENCING HO

Thats gonna go well,...lawl

Actually it is, he is asking me to stop and that is exactly what I am doing. They didn't send an Imperial Officer to my door telling me to cease and desist or else.

That is why it went well.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Did we go too far?

Yes. Did \m/? Yes. You both acted bad. Especially when you see it from our point of view, since you're both our allies. As I told you in a query, I would love to smack you both

Did we solve one problem but create a bigger one?

You didn't solve it, but you did create a bigger one. Now please, kiss and make up

I still do love me some Polar though

[erikz]

Actually, they joined in after the initial request to keep this limited, was not fallowed and FOK went in guns blazing.

NSO respected NpO's decision to keep it limited and did not join the original conflict towards which the request was directed. Once FOK joined, obviously enough, conditions changed and NSO had treaties to hold.

Calling NSO out for escalating things, is ridiculous.

Calling FOK out for escalating things is also ridiculous. We came to the aid of our friends in PC who where going to get a curb stomp because Grub was too proud to accept the terms. Also; the one escalating this in the first place was Grub playing Moral Orel to begin with.

I don't really care what he did to \m/, because I don't like them. What he did to PC though was (maybe indirectly, maybe not) forcing them into this conflict. Thats when friends come in to their defense. Tbh: we waited days to see if the peace talks were successful.