Earogema Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 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. So you've got no problem with this here treaty then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Er..that was in reply to VolNavy. Check the quotes. Things are starting to come together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Nice spin. This was a deliberate action by Vanguard. Period. Of course it was a deliberate action. I doubt they accidentally signed a treaty then, instead of canceling it, accidentally announced it. However, that doesn't mean they are going to use this at all in the current war. Besides, as already pointed out they already held a treaty with one of the alliances in Stickmen. Edited January 25, 2010 by Ryuzaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM 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. I will admit, this is certainly a possibility, and as Bob has pointed out above, the communications changes may have hindered their ability to announce this treaty. However, the fact that this treaty was announced shortly after Stickmen entered into the war against Polaris causes me to suspect the motives behind signing a blanket MDoA agreement with an entire bloc. I cannot agree with you on the point that treaties are not spontaneous creations born out of political expediency. While I will not say that all treaties are like this (because that would be silly) I can assure you that there are a good number of treaties, particularly those signed very close to the start of a war, that are signed so that alliances can be sure they are on the right side of the 'line.' However the timing again brings me back to the point you quoted. This is the first treaty I can remember that has been announced with a major combatant after that combatant has already entered the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy 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. I may be mistaken about the nature of CnG then. I thought it was a MDAP bloc. If so, Vanguard wars, MK wars. So this treaty has a big impact on MK and a lot to do with them since they seem to be leaning in this direction of the war rather than the Polaris/STA direction. I would be stunned if Archon wasn't at the very least closely consulted about this treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 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? No, but from the sounds of things, they had no idea it was coming. So I'm thinking vanguard deliberately blindsided them, or this treaty is, as it looks, a last minute slaptogether. Btw, I can see why you feel pretty. I am very atrtacted to your avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) So you've got no problem with this here treaty then? Of course not, they treaty who they want, but sign a treaty with an entire bloc isn't a smart thing to do mainly when this bloc is stickmen Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Of course not, they treaty who they want, but sign a treaty with an entire bloc isn't a smart thing mainly when this bloc is stickmen Oh okay then. It seems my attempt to pen you into a corner with words has failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Now this is a popcorn topic if I ever saw one. Rock on Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urmom Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I really don't understand the point of treaties anymore if people just sign them right before a war to say that they were "allied". I'm becoming a big fan of the "paperless" route. Regardless, good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I really don't understand the point of treaties anymore if people just sign them right before a war to say that they were "allied". I'm becoming a big fan of the "paperless" route. Regardless, good luck. Wasn't it many of your alliance mates clammoring about the need for treaty just a few days ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 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. I can respect that, and believe you. However, my train of thought was on your alliance, so I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alekhine Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I will admit, this is certainly a possibility, and as Bob has pointed out above, the communications changes may have hindered their ability to announce this treaty. However, the fact that this treaty was announced shortly after Stickmen entered into the war against Polaris causes me to suspect the motives behind signing a blanket MDoA agreement with an entire bloc. I cannot agree with you on the point that treaties are not spontaneous creations born out of political expediency. While I will not say that all treaties are like this (because that would be silly) I can assure you that there are a good number of treaties, particularly those signed very close to the start of a war, that are signed so that alliances can be sure they are on the right side of the 'line.' However the timing again brings me back to the point you quoted. This is the first treaty I can remember that has been announced with a major combatant after that combatant has already entered the war. I don't see the reason why Vanguard would feel that it needed this treaty to end up on the correct side of the "line", as they already hold treaties with alliances on the side that this treaty solidifies them in. It doesn't add any extra "ins" for Vanguard, so the political expediency of it is rather small. Like I said in my second post, the relationships that are encoded in this treaty were being built during my time in Vanguard last summer. The timing is odd, as is the fact that they apparently sprung it on STA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Wasn't it many of your alliance mates clammoring about the need for treaty just a few days ago? He isn't his alliance mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) I really don't understand the point of treaties anymore if people just sign them right before a war to say that they were "allied". I'm becoming a big fan of the "paperless" route. Regardless, good luck. That's why I love war, in war times you know who alliance/people really are and it will always happen, with or without treaties. Note that is a general comentary and not directed specially to Vanguard or Stickmen. Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 He isn't his alliance mates. /me looks shocked. You're right... I can't believe I said you and meant his alliance mates.... Oh wait.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juslen Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 A war Polaris did not have to enter against an alliance which has ties to several of its own allies. I don't see how anyone is surprised that this war has escalated this far considering the climate on Planet Bob over the last month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I may be mistaken about the nature of CnG then. I thought it was a MDAP bloc. If so, Vanguard wars, MK wars. So this treaty has a big impact on MK and a lot to do with them since they seem to be leaning in this direction of the war rather than the Polaris/STA direction. I would be stunned if Archon wasn't at the very least closely consulted about this treaty. As had been said MK was has a MDoAP with NpO and Vanguard already has a treaty with SLCB. If you want to be an e-lawyer this changes noting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 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. They should either drop their treaty with Polar or defend them from the aggressive attacks that Polar is getting at this point. Once again, they are more offended by actions taken against the ally of an ally of an ally than by the actions taken by against a direct ally, one that frankly, I figured they were extremely close to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) A war Polaris did not have to enter against an alliance which has ties to several of its own allies. I don't see how anyone is surprised that this war has escalated this far considering the climate on Planet Bob over the last month or so. Polar got used to people giving in to the shake-downs I suppose. Sorry, folks, you're not NPO and you didn't do half the legwork they had to get that kind of monopoly on things. Your foundation was tenuous, and you acted far too early. Edited January 25, 2010 by Xiphosis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 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. This person is correct. Hi Alekhine . iFOK has been over at the Vanguard boards and vice versa for quite some time now, not just for lame chit-chatting but for the real deal. We got to know Vanguard quite well in the last months and they us (I hope ). Considering SLCB already holds a MDoAP with our new found brothers in Vanguard and the fact that FCO holds them very dearly, we decided to take the step and just did a four-way in 1 step instead of each Stickmen signatory signing an individual treaty with Vanguard. Whether or not you believe it, this was in the works for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 They should either drop their treaty with Polar or defend them from the aggressive attacks that Polar is getting at this point. Once again, they are more offended by actions taken against the ally of an ally of an ally than by the actions taken by against a direct ally, one that frankly, I figured they were extremely close to. If you really want to help MK decide what to do, you can join them here. http://thecastlehall.com/boards/index.php?board=4.0 Best of luck, I hear their application process is annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 They should either drop their treaty with Polar or defend them from the aggressive attacks that Polar is getting at this point. Once again, they are more offended by actions taken against the ally of an ally of an ally than by the actions taken by against a direct ally, one that frankly, I figured they were extremely close to. People are attacking Polar in DEFENCE of their allies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledown Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Wow, that is opportunism at the lowest level. Yes, people like this who sign treaties with a potentially opposing second on the eve of global war, even if the treaty had been in the works for a while, are scum I'm sure you wouldn't associate with. Wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 People are attacking Polar in DEFENCE of their allies Nope, FOK and Stickmen entered via optional aggression. Not in defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts