Goldie Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I wonder how many more people will have this stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 They will have plenty of new people who will snap them up even if they dont honour any of their treaties and leave their allies to be crushed. And yet that somehow erases the fact that they're plenty happy to not give a damn about the treaties they signed. At least ODN has been trying to atone for it's own admitted mistakes, you'd think folks would at least be willing to give NEW as much crap as ODN got for over a year. What a farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) You so cool NEW. ~not sarcastic~ In terms of not honoring treaties, I would hope NEW has nonchaining clauses. Edited January 25, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall14 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Very disappointed in an AA I held in high regard for their undying loyalty to their allies no matter what the odds or CB... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 You so cool NEW. ~not sarcastic~ In terms of not honoring treaties, I would hope NEW has nonchaining clauses. I'll hold my applause until they get insulted for over a year with a nickname like "Optional Defense Network". Man, I sure hope you're not being a hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I have not seen any cancellations from NEW. Yet. There might not be a reason to cancel them. Time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 or oDoAPs. NEW. Sigh. Wars aren't entered due to the validity or invalidity of the CB. Or, not usually. Your mutual defense pacts don't come with disclaimers. Don't sign defense treaties if you won't defend them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Very disappointing to see this. You have Mutual Defense treaties, not Optional Defense. I still love you guys. But. Yeah. You know very well that NEW has always been a formidable ally to their friends (TPF, FEAR and co). They have always been strong and good fighters and didn't start wars themselves but always were there to defend their friends. The latest examples were the Karma war and the Coincidental war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 This is somewhat disappointing. Haven't you said before that you'd take any war you can get and stand by your allies? And you only now get cold feet? Moral preferences do not make an 'M' into an 'O'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 And yet that somehow erases the fact that they're plenty happy to not give a damn about the treaties they signed. At least ODN has been trying to atone for it's own admitted mistakes, you'd think folks would at least be willing to give NEW as much crap as ODN got for over a year. What a farce. Im not condoning it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Once again, I am impressed with you guys. Great announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentFury Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 classy it is hope you have a good show Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 So what you are trying to say is that some of your allies join the conflict in the Polaris's side you will not honor your treaties with them, this is a very honorable move Also this war isn't a "carefully orchestrated pseudo-morality crusade" we don't orchestrated the \m/ raid against FoA, we don't orchestrated \m/ members acting like idiots in private. We also stand for our belives and do not support coawards moves like bully the weak just because you can. But this expected comming from an alliance who behave like \m/. How I said yesterday, in war time you see where your allies stands, happily I'm not allied with such alliance. Your tears are delicious. Who is crying that river again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Taco Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'd love to see everyone do this from here on out. At this moment the two sides are more or less equal. Let 'em fight it out and may the best man win. Get the bad blood out and let the rest of us watch the fireworks. No need for this thing to treaty-chain its way across Planet Bob and turn into a curb stomping one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Very disappointed in an AA I held in high regard for their undying loyalty to their allies no matter what the odds or CB... You would be hailing this had your side not been the subject of this announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) You so cool NEW. ~not sarcastic~ In terms of not honoring treaties, I would hope NEW has nonchaining clauses. Article 5. Aggressive War In the event that a signatory finds it necessary to conduct organized offensive maneuvers, the opposite signatory is obligated to assist through any financial or military means requested. The attacking member agrees to provide the partner with 72 hours to provide the requested aid. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of this treaty and thereby cancels it. Looks like they don't know what they sign, so in the case of TPF joining war(doubful) they will cleary broke the treaty with TPF. If you just join wars that we agree with the CB, don't do MADPs NEW. Your tears are delicious. Who is crying that river again? Sorry, I have the bad habit of pointing people being cowards or/and dishonorable. But doesn't think that I'm upset for not having NEW in my side because I'm not, really. Edited January 25, 2010 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jaym Il Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Best bet would be to not sign something as extreme as an MADP if you're not willing to honor it in all situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Hmm. A tough decision to make. For those of you boo-hooing, and those of you who are congratulating them simply because you are on the "opposite" side of the treaty web and want to see those not allied to you lose a pillar of support, I say you're both wrong and petty. Granted, a treaty is a important promise, and an obligation, but they are not built out of stone. They are adaptable to the circumstance. If those who are treatied with NEW are truly their friends, then they will have come to an understanding in private. Good friends can respect each others differences of opinion. Should there be a review of the type of treaty one holds with another should an occasion like this arise? Of course. Would I be a little disappointed in their decision. Yes. But I have much more respect for those that stand by their convictions than those who throw away those convictions simply because they are not shared with their friends. I would hope that all who are allied to, or closely linked, to consider any verbal attacks in bad form. Edited January 25, 2010 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 What surprises me is that in the past, NEW leadership has repeatedly noted that they're playing for fun, not morality. There is nothing less fun than being neutral in a major war where your allies all get involved and you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 What surprises me is that in the past, NEW leadership has repeatedly noted that they're playing for fun, not morality. There is nothing less fun than being neutral in a major war where your allies all get involved and you don't. Counterpoint: Nothing about this war is fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) I'm all for alliance ignoring treaties and jilting allies to do what's right, but you actually have to do what's right. The moral dimension for either side of this war is fairly flimsy. No one should have any excuse but to follow their treaties. edit: I should add that while I'm against tech raiding, I don't think this is really about tech raiding. Edited January 25, 2010 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I respect your stance NEW, your opinion coincides with mine. However, if your stance on this will differ so much from your allies, you may want to rethink your treaties. People don't look kindly on those who don't honor their treaties, despite the reasons for doing so. Just a thought. I still admire NEW in any case, so whatever you do, good luck to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpol777 Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I have no opinion on your stance in regards to this conflict, but I do applaud your application of the spirit of treaties. You're already catching some flak over it and I'm sure that will continue, but that is mostly from those that don't understand what a treaty is supposed to mean. I'd hope you would take some time to reevaluate your treaties. If you have to put words to a relationship it's not a friendship, it's a contract. This move shows you are beyond contracts. In any case, good show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) ***edit**** after re reading the op I will look upon NEWs actions in the comming days with interest. Good luck NEW on your chosen path. Edited January 25, 2010 by Buds The Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiss Goodbye Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 (edited) Counterpoint: Nothing about this war is fun. Counter-counter point: For anyone who has allies on different sides, yeah. True. NEW does not suffer from that problem as far as I can tell. Edited January 25, 2010 by Kiss Goodbye 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.