\m/ Decree

[Tick1]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='19 February 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1266554042' post='2191408']
So you're of the opinion that one should just bolt from a fight once it gets tough leaving friends behind.

Got it, thanks. Opinion noted.
[/quote]

I guess your also illiterate, but you think aiding an alliance after a battle isn't helpful? Last I checked, rebuilding your friends builds a stronger bond than any war.

[KingHippo]

[quote name='Tick1' date='19 February 2010 - 04:29 AM' timestamp='1266553778' post='2191394']
What good is a friend when they are dead? I mean really you need to pick when you are actually helping or when your just dooming yourself and your friend. If they where wanting to be more beneficial they should drop out while they still have quite a bit of infrastructure, but then again what would I know about helping rebuild alliances. Anyhow I think they could be more beneficial after this war is over rather than attempting to help during it. Honor or not you wouldn't stick your hand in a hot stove because your friend also did, now would you?

Edit: In all honesty I do enjoy fighting Valhalla, but I believe they really should consider this offer.
[/quote]

A good friend will come and bail you out of jail…but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, “Damn…that was fun!”

[Tick1]

[quote name='KingHippo' date='19 February 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1266554152' post='2191420']
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail…but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, “Damn…that was fun!”
[/quote]

So now your insinuating that your also stupid? A real friend would have talked you out of whatever you had done to get put into jail. They would have explained to you what a stupid idea it was. Although I guess your not going to grasp playing the smarter person of the friends.

[KingHippo]

[quote name='Tick1' date='19 February 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1266554325' post='2191446']
So now your insinuating that your also stupid? A real friend would have talked you out of whatever you had done to get put into jail. They would have explained to you what a stupid idea it was. Although I guess your not going to grasp playing the smarter person of the friends.
[/quote]
loyalty != stupidity

[Tick1]

[quote name='KingHippo' date='19 February 2010 - 04:41 AM' timestamp='1266554518' post='2191455']
loyalty != stupidity
[/quote]

I guess you have a poor vocabulary also. Maybe it's just a relation between the lower members in Valhalla. I really don't understand how you guys where allowed into your current alliance, but I don't have time to ponder such ignorant thoughts.

Loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person or cause. You do not need to follow someone into battle to remain loyal to your friends you only need to be there when they need you most. Being destroyed while your friends are being destroyed is not being there when they need you most. They'll need you after the war is over rather than during the war. Considering it's a never ending battle for yourself, but then maybe I haven't looked at the treaty web for awhile. Please inform me of the people who've declared in help of your comrades.

[KingHippo]

[quote name='Tick1' date='19 February 2010 - 04:48 AM' timestamp='1266554929' post='2191489']
I guess you have a poor vocabulary also. Maybe it's just a relation between the lower members in Valhalla. I really don't understand how you guys where allowed into your current alliance, but I don't have time to ponder such ignorant thoughts.

Loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person or cause. You do not need to follow someone into battle to remain loyal to your friends you only need to be there when they need you most. Being destroyed while your friends are being destroyed is not being there when they need you most. They'll need you after the war is over rather than during the war. Considering it's a never ending battle for yourself, but then maybe I haven't looked at the treaty web for awhile. Please inform me of the people who've declared in help of your comrades.
[/quote]

i guess i was brushing up on my grammar when you were studying "vocabulary."
I'll end this argument just by saying you and i have different views on loyalty, and i'd like to add the person from PC i did fight in this war was an excellent warrior and an excellent person.

Edited February 19, 2010 by KingHippo

[Thomas Jackson]

All this fighting is nice, but I think it's better when done on the battlefield.

[KingHippo]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='19 February 2010 - 05:03 AM' timestamp='1266555797' post='2191534']
All this fighting is nice, but I think it's better when done on the battlefield.
[/quote]
well said

[Jonesing]

[quote name='KingHippo' date='19 February 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1266554152' post='2191420']
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail…but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, “Damn…that was fun!”
[/quote]
Love this analogy, it is so true. I'd have the same views on loyalty as yourself KingHippo.

[RePePe]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1266554929' post='2191489']
I guess you have a poor vocabulary also. Maybe it's just a relation between the lower members in Valhalla. I really don't understand how you guys where allowed into your current alliance, but I don't have time to ponder such ignorant thoughts.

Loyalty is faithfulness or a devotion to a person or cause. You do not need to follow someone into battle to remain loyal to your friends you only need to be there when they need you most. Being destroyed while your friends are being destroyed is not being there when they need you most. They'll need you after the war is over rather than during the war. Considering it's a never ending battle for yourself, but then maybe I haven't looked at the treaty web for awhile. Please inform me of the people who've declared in help of your comrades.
[/quote]

A smug tone and attempted caustic jabs are often signs of a weak argument, of an insecurity which manifests itself in the form of defensive offense.

[Tick1]

[quote name='RePePe' date='19 February 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1266621117' post='2192594']
A smug tone and attempted caustic jabs are often signs of a weak argument, of an insecurity which manifests itself in the form of defensive offense.
[/quote]

Since you seem to have so much time to evaluate my psychological state I'd assume things from your end of the war things are progressing well. If you really believe I was arguing my point then maybe I'll have to lay off the debates, but the jabs where nothing other than what I truly thought of the members within your alliance at the time I replied to them.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Tick1

[Newhotness]

well i think this thread is pretty much over. its boiled down to insults and character attack now instead of actual points being made

[jeff744]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1266527916' post='2190205']
Right on the money! I clearly can see that Jeff has not been paying attention to prior engadgements that lead up to our current war. Realizing this I feel I can also conclude that Jeff has no clue as to what his alliance is fighting for. I'm going to also conclude that any member within his alliance at his rank or below cannot have possibly been informed by their higher ranking officers. Therefor any further comment he makes shall be considered an ignorant one until he's actually done some research on our current situation.

Please Jeff, do us all a favor and make the world a brighter place.
[/quote]
We fight for an ally that was attacked by a alliance that had no treaty to enter the war, do you need any more of a reason?

Please Tick, do us all a favour a keep the personal insults out of it.

[Tick1]

[quote name='jeff744' date='20 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1266629581' post='2192753']
We fight for an ally that was attacked by a alliance that had no treaty to enter the war, do you need any more of a reason?

Please Tick, do us all a favour a keep the personal insults out of it.
[/quote]

IRON had no more reason to enter the war than FAN. The pre-emptive attack was a joke and should not have been used as a CB considering the fact that they had no actual evidence that CnG would have been entering the war. If you think CnG would have attacked TOP & IRON while split apart you must have mis-interpreted the current situation. Plus everyone knows the aggressor is generally in the wrong.

Edit: (Also Defending an aggressor, does that not also make you an aggressor?)

Edited February 20, 2010 by Tick1

[Graphix]

Our membership had no problem assisting IRON by declaring on FAN. Personally, and this is just my opinion, I felt they were attacking because it was a convenient time to knock IRON down a peg, and perhaps I can even understand their explanation that they have friends among the CnG crowd. On another personal note, I don't agree with any declarations of war that are explained as "pre-emptive" strikes. What TOP/IRON did, I just can't agree with. If CnG was entering the original war eventually, I'd rather see the treaties kick in, and defense done proper. I don't think hitting first got them anywhere, and I definitely think it's going to hurt their reputations in the foreseeable future. Now, all of that said, I may not agree with their actions (I may have been able to sit back and watch them get beat up by the bigger forces that they declared on for a while), however I'm not comfortable with sitting by while FAN decides they'll just jump in too for the fun of it. We're still have our treaty with IRON, and as far as I'm concerned they didn't directly cause the FAN attacks. If FAN was ready and had friends who were willing to jump on us, well that's just to be expected. I'm not upset with FAN, it's been a hell of a fight against them and the others who declared on us, I have a lot of respect for the people I've been at war with.

I'm sure there are many people here who disagree with my points of view here, and you are certainly entitled to that. However simply understand that most of the Valhalla membership made it clear they approved of defending IRON from FAN. The government has consistently ensured this is the opinion of the membership. I wanted to convey that on as a regular Valhalla member.

[Thomas Jackson]

Very classy post, Graphix. Props to you, good sir.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Graphix' date='20 February 2010 - 05:07 AM' timestamp='1266642427' post='2192982']
Our membership had no problem assisting IRON by declaring on FAN. Personally, and this is just my opinion, I felt they were attacking because it was a convenient time to knock IRON down a peg, and perhaps I can even understand their explanation that they have friends among the CnG crowd. On another personal note, I don't agree with any declarations of war that are explained as "pre-emptive" strikes. What TOP/IRON did, I just can't agree with. If CnG was entering the original war eventually, I'd rather see the treaties kick in, and defense done proper. I don't think hitting first got them anywhere, and I definitely think it's going to hurt their reputations in the foreseeable future. Now, all of that said, I may not agree with their actions (I may have been able to sit back and watch them get beat up by the bigger forces that they declared on for a while), however I'm not comfortable with sitting by while FAN decides they'll just jump in too for the fun of it. We're still have our treaty with IRON, and as far as I'm concerned they didn't directly cause the FAN attacks. If FAN was ready and had friends who were willing to jump on us, well that's just to be expected. I'm not upset with FAN, it's been a hell of a fight against them and the others who declared on us, I have a lot of respect for the people I've been at war with.

I'm sure there are many people here who disagree with my points of view here, and you are certainly entitled to that. However simply understand that most of the Valhalla membership made it clear they approved of defending IRON from FAN. The government has consistently ensured this is the opinion of the membership. I wanted to convey that on as a regular Valhalla member.
[/quote]

I would just like to inform you that FAN has no written treaties. So please rethink whom you believe they consider to be allies and friends. They are definitely not doing this to knock IRON down a peg, they are doing it because they believe the alliances within CnG hold a bond with them. Whether it's for friendship or for power doesn't matter considering that's the whole reasoning behind the treaty web. Is it not?

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Tick1' date='19 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1266636435' post='2192863']
Edit: (Also Defending an aggressor, does that not also make you an aggressor?)
[/quote]

FAN aggressed IRON. They had no obligation to attack IRON meaning no chaining clauses were irrelevent.

Valhalla was bound to defend IRON under the circumstances.

Valhalla is not involved in the IRON/TOP vs C&G front, we're only concerned with FAN.

Of course, since the aggressor is generally in the wrong as you say, it should be noted that PC went aggressive on Valhalla along with DT and NoR. =)

Also, your character attacks are unfounded and unnecessary.

[Haflinger]

Graphix and Levi have concisely explained why this whole front is involved in the war.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='20 February 2010 - 05:39 AM' timestamp='1266644345' post='2193058']
FAN aggressed IRON. They had no obligation to attack IRON meaning no chaining clauses were irrelevent.

Valhalla was bound to defend IRON under the circumstances.

Valhalla is not involved in the IRON/TOP vs C&G front, we're only concerned with FAN.

Of course, since the aggressor is generally in the wrong as you say, it should be noted that PC went aggressive on Valhalla along with DT and NoR. =)

Also, your character attacks are unfounded and unnecessary.
[/quote]

When did I ever say that PC was right when declaring war on Valhalla? From my perspective I don't see FAN as an aggressor when they jumped in for defense of CnG. I rather see them as the stranger helping out the poor boy in his time of need. IRON/TOP swooped in on CnG when they needed help. FAN was there to pick them up and help them along the way. You guys call it optional aggression, I myself refer to it as optional defense. Considering it's something we should all hold ourselves to when someone needs it. Now did FAN truly need our help? Of course not they could have handled Valhalla on their own most likely, but would they have been able to help CnG out with IRON as much had we not jumped in? I personally don't believe so.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 05:43 AM' timestamp='1266644595' post='2193073']
Graphix and Levi have concisely explained why this whole front is involved in the war.
[/quote]

Yes clearly they can point out their own treaty with IRON, but shouldn't there be more decisions to entering a war other than your treaty obligations? Maybe not, maybe you guys hold more standards within upholding your own treaties. Even when it's for a poor cause.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Tick1

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Tick1' date='20 February 2010 - 12:50 AM' timestamp='1266645020' post='2193097']
When did I ever say that PC was right when declaring war on Valhalla? From my perspective I don't see FAN as an aggressor when they jumped in for defense of CnG. I rather see them as the stranger helping out the poor boy in his time of need. IRON/TOP swooped in on CnG when they needed help. FAN was there to pick them up and help them along the way. You guys call it optional aggression, I myself refer to it as optional defense. Considering it's something we should all hold ourselves to when someone need it. Now did FAN truly need our help? Of course not they could have handles Valhalla on their own most likely, but would they have been able to help CnG out with IRON as much had we not jumped in? I don't believe so.



Yes clearly they can point out their own treaty with IRON, but shouldn't their be more decisions to entering a war other than your treaty obligations? Maybe not, maybe you guys hold more standards within upholding your own treaties. Even when it's for a poor cause.
[/quote]

You contradict yourself within a single post, i applaud your lack of focus.

No, we don't consider it oA, we consider it to be Aggression as they had no treaty obligations.

And yes, we obviously hold ourselves to a higher standard than you are capable of understanding.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='20 February 2010 - 06:01 AM' timestamp='1266645701' post='2193125']
You contradict yourself within a single post, i applaud your lack of focus.

No, we don't consider it oA, we consider it to be Aggression as they had no treaty obligations.

And yes, we obviously hold ourselves to a higher standard than you are capable of understanding.
[/quote]

When did I contradict myself? I guess not holding PC to the same standards as FAN is contradicting.

FAN clearly didn't need our help. CnG on the other hand needed a lot of help with preventing the massacre which laid at their doorsteps.

Also in reference to the Optional Aggression. You'll agree that FAN didn't need to enter the war I'm guessing, right? Which therefor made it optional.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Tick1

[Graphix]

We didn't agree that FAN declaring war and stating they were friends with CnG out of no where constituted a valid reason for FAN to declare on IRON. In fact it looked like they were just doing what TOP/IRON did in the first place and declaring because it seemed like the opportune time. Now, at this point in time, we of course can see who FAN considers a friend based on who they've decided to help in this war. I find it odd that you indicate PC might be a different situation, I feel they did exactly what FAN did. I'm fairly certain they actually said the same in one of their threads, that they were declaring because they felt they were helping their friends without needing treaties. Now that we know where these alliances stand, and who they consider friends, I'm sure future conflicts will have fewer escalations and surprises (actually I know mpol enough to realize he always likes to introduce a new surprise). Anyways, I addressed this in my last post, but just to clarify again, the membership of Valhalla believed FAN shouldn't have jumped on IRON out of no where and then told us who their friends were after. We're going to defend IRON against FAN in this war because we believe it's right. We are ready for people to disagree with us on this, everyone has a different opinion, but this is ours. It wasn't just about obeying the letter of the treaty with IRON. We do consider them friends. Sometimes that means letting them take the lumps they've brought on themselves and helping them pick themselves up later. In this case however we will stick with our beliefs that FAN didn't need to join this fight. I'm not fully caught up on the NS levels on both sides, but I'm fairly certain I remember CnG having a considerable lead at the time FAN entered the war. Calling them the poor child who desperately needed assistance is a bit dramatic in my opinion.

@ Thomas Jackson: Thank you, I consider most of your posts to be very level-headed and helpful in our discussions.


Edit: Just as a side note, if I said "they" instead of "you" when referring to PC, it's because it slipped my mind for a few minutes that you were from PC and not \m/.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Graphix

[neneko]

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='20 February 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1266645701' post='2193125']
No, we don't consider it oA, we consider it to be Aggression as they had no treaty obligations.
[/quote]
This is sort of amusing seeing as you declared in defense of IRON.

[Tick1]

[quote name='neneko' date='20 February 2010 - 06:18 AM' timestamp='1266646690' post='2193160']
This is sort of amusing seeing as you declared in defense of IRON.
[/quote]

Neneko please read further back that statement war referring to FAN not Valhalla