Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Indeed, which is why I am shocked to see Vanguard throw them by the wayside without a moments hesitation. You missed my point. Vanguard - STA is not the only treaty they have. They have to make their decisions considering all of their allies, even if it may harm a dear friend of theirs. While it is sad to see this, I don't view this as the end of that relationship at all, unless STA chooses to end it. Again can't speak for Vanguard my observations~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arentak Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Stay classy, Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 A history that forces you to announce an oA treaty mere hours after said bloc has entered into a war. Ok, I'll keep that in mind. In a world where every other alliance announces treaties either right before a war starts or shortly after a war ends, Vanguard strikes a bold new course in announcing offensive treaties with combatants once the war has already started. Or, considering that this situation flared up within the last week or so, its possible that this treaty had been in the works for a long time and was in the process of getting signed and it finally got approval to be announced now? I know you'll be unwilling to accept such a coincidence, but without inside knowledge of what went down (which, as a disclaimer, I do not myself have), you can't say that that isn't the case. Its my experience that treaties aren't spontaneously decided upon, and that building up relationships and writing treaties and getting signatures takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Stay classy, Vanguard. Will do, and right back atcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Vanguard - STA is not the only treaty they have. They have to make their decisions considering all of their allies, even if it may harm a dear friend of theirs. While it is sad to see this, I don't view this as the end of that relationship at all, unless STA chooses to end it. Again can't speak for Vanguard my observations~ Nice spin. This was a deliberate action by Vanguard. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Enlighten me as to why. Re-read his post. It's there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Wow, that is opportunism at the lowest level. Hey, at least they'll actually have a solid backing up reason if they choose to get involved in the following war. Unlike you. Personal opinion and all that, obv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Or, considering that this situation flared up within the last week or so, its possible that this treaty had been in the works for a long time and was in the process of getting signed and it finally got approval to be announced now? I know you'll be unwilling to accept such a coincidence, but without inside knowledge of what went down (which, as a disclaimer, I do not myself have), you can't say that that isn't the case. Its my experience that treaties aren't spontaneously decided upon, and that building up relationships and writing treaties and getting signatures takes time. So where does this all fall into your codex? Do Grem feel that the reason for this war are good or bad? Considering your recent history on what will be done due to bettering this planet, this is of great interest to myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Re-read his post. It's there. Thats cute. I caught it in the first place, I just want him to say it so he can realize how the two situations are not similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I am honestly curious, is this a way to somehow make sure MK doesn't have to defend Polar as they probably should be doing at this point? Since they have the MDoAP with them and Polar has been aggressively attacked by several alliances in the past 2 days, among whom the people who Vanguard signed this treaty with. I know MK holds a MDoAP with FOK as well as Polaris, but FOK did enter via oA in this case. MK/CNG members seemed quite outraged that Polaris would attack the ally of an ally of an ally yet aren't having a big issue with FOK, a direct ally, attacking Polar a direct ally. It would seem that MK is closer on the treaty web to Polar than iFOK/Stickmen at the very least, since they don't have a direct tie with them that I could find. This also puts STA, another direct MK/Vanguard ally, in a very very tight spot as I'll be stunned if STA doesn't roll in support of Polar. Oh well, fun times in the post Karma world as what appeared to be brothers fight brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Nice spin. This was a deliberate action by Vanguard. Period. You are now putting your own spin into it. This was a poorly timed treaty signing by Vanguard, that has quite reasonably upset STA. You may disagree, and that's fine, you are entitled to that. I am honestly curious, is this a way to somehow make sure MK doesn't have to defend Polar as they probably should be doing at this point? Since they have the MDoAP with them and Polar has been aggressively attacked by several alliances in the past 2 days, among whom the people who Vanguard signed this treaty with. MK had nothing to do with this treaty. In terms of Vanguard signing with people who attacked Polaris, they had a MDoAP with SLCB prior to this, and could have used it regardless if they were so inclined. Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I am honestly curious, is this a way to somehow make sure MK doesn't have to defend Polar as they probably should be doing at this point? Since they have the MDoAP with them and Polar has been aggressively attacked by several alliances in the past 2 days, among whom the people who Vanguard signed this treaty with. I know MK holds a MDoAP with FOK as well as Polaris, but FOK did enter via oA in this case. MK/CNG members seemed quite outraged that Polaris would attack the ally of an ally of an ally yet aren't having a big issue with FOK, a direct ally, attacking Polar a direct ally. It would seem that MK is closer on the treaty web to Polar than iFOK/Stickmen at the very least, since they don't have a direct tie with them that I could find. This also puts STA, another direct MK/Vanguard ally, in a very very tight spot as I'll be stunned if STA doesn't roll in support of Polar. Oh well, fun times in the post Karma world as what appeared to be brothers fight brothers. Isn't it hilarious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Isn't it hilarious? Do you realize what a tight spot you put MK in? Hilarious right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So where does this all fall into your codex? Do Grem feel that the reason for this war are good or bad? Considering your recent history on what will be done due to bettering this planet, this is of great interest to myself. Not exactly sure why you decided to address my AA instead of my post, especially since I just got accepted into Gremlins yesterday. Thus, I can't really claim to speak on behalf of my alliance, nor does my post have anything to do with The Gremlins. My post was motivated mainly by the fact that during my time in Vanguard and Vanguard government last summer, Vanguard began developing the relationships with the members of Stickmen that we now see outlined in this treaty. It was also my experience from there that tracking down various Sovereigns/Viziers/Stumpys/etc is sometimes a task that takes a while, leading to some bureaucratic delay in things like treaties. Bob also brought up a good point regarding the forums being down the last couple days, as that could have contributed to the timing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 MK had nothing to do with this treaty. In terms of Vanguard signing with people who attacked Polaris, they had a MDoAP with SLCB prior to this, and could have used it regardless if they were so inclined. That doesn't answer his question, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Indeed, which is why I am shocked to see Vanguard throw them by the wayside without a moments hesitation. You missed my point. I'm sorry... I don't recall reading any dissolution of their treaty with STA... could you point me to it so I can give them my condolences? I am honestly curious, is this a way to somehow make sure MK doesn't have to defend Polar as they probably should be doing at this point? Since they have the MDoAP with them and Polar has been aggressively attacked by several alliances in the past 2 days, among whom the people who Vanguard signed this treaty with. I know MK holds a MDoAP with FOK as well as Polaris, but FOK did enter via oA in this case. MK/CNG members seemed quite outraged that Polaris would attack the ally of an ally of an ally yet aren't having a big issue with FOK, a direct ally, attacking Polar a direct ally. It would seem that MK is closer on the treaty web to Polar than iFOK/Stickmen at the very least, since they don't have a direct tie with them that I could find. This also puts STA, another direct MK/Vanguard ally, in a very very tight spot as I'll be stunned if STA doesn't roll in support of Polar. Oh well, fun times in the post Karma world as what appeared to be brothers fight brothers. Wait... so they should be happy to defend Polar in an aggressive war they started? Not only an aggressive war they started, but one against an ally's ally. Something putting them in a situation they didn't agree with? I'm trying to follow your logic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You are now putting your own spin into it. This was a poorly timed treaty signing by Vanguard, that has quite reasonably upset STA. You may disagree, and that's fine, you are entitled to that. MK had nothing to do with this treaty. In terms of Vanguard signing with people who attacked Polaris, they had a MDoAP with SLCB prior to this, and could have used it regardless if they were so inclined. Why did you even bring up MK? I certainly did not. I respect vanguard too much to believe they did not know what they were doing when they slapped together this treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 That doesn't answer his question, though. I apologize. This is not a way for MK to avoid its treaty with Polaris. Is that better? On another note, if any allies of MK have any issues they care to bring up but don't want to publicly, I can provide a general member of MK's reasoned opinion on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'm sorry... I don't recall reading any dissolution of their treaty with STA... could you point me to it so I can give them my condolences? You're right. STA's membership is obviously ecstatic with how they've been treated, as evidenced by their outpouring of support for Vangaurd's move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Do you realize what a tight spot you put MK in? Hilarious right? If we can't attack an ally of an ally who are allied with one of our allies, let's all sit, hold our hands and sing "kumbaya my lord" until the end of our days here because all we'll have in this world is boring peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You're right. STA's membership is obviously ecstatic with how they've been treated, as evidenced by their outpouring of support for Vangaurd's move. I'm sorry, but what do you have to do with this situation at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Why did you even bring up MK? I certainly did not. I respect vanguard too much to believe they did not know what they were doing when they slapped together this treaty. Er..that was in reply to VolNavy. Check the quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I know MK holds a MDoAP with FOK as well as Polaris, but FOK did enter via oA in this case. MK/CNG members seemed quite outraged that Polaris would attack the ally of an ally of an ally yet aren't having a big issue with FOK, a direct ally, attacking Polar a direct ally. It would seem that MK is closer on the treaty web to Polar than iFOK/Stickmen at the very least, since they don't have a direct tie with them that I could find. Or, how about that time Grub was ready to roll on two of MK's MADP allies. You lie in the bed you make, ect ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You're right. STA's membership is obviously ecstatic with how they've been treated, as evidenced by their outpouring of support for Vangaurd's move. That being said, to state that they've thrown STA to the side is disingenuous. Are you insinuating that Vanguard can't sign treaties without approval of STA? Especially with people they've enjoyed building a bond with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Do you realize what a tight spot you put MK in? Hilarious right? What about the tight spot MK put itself in by over-treatying. What D34th said. Due to modern times, everyone is allied to everyone by some chain of treaties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts