Farkistan Detective Agency

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='09 April 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1270858614' post='2254776']
I didn't, but there are a lot of smart people wasting a whole lot of breath in here over a PIAT.
[/quote]

Yes...and not all of them are members of NSO.

[Bob Janova]

If it was that meaningless they wouldn't have signed it in the first place. Sure, it's not as bad as signing an MDP with Polar right now but it's still a sign of dubious judgement to align yourselves politically with them.

The RoK treaty does not bind Polar strongly enough to SF/SG, as can clearly be seen by the fact that they started a war that resulted in them fighting against SF directly. So it makes sense that, as a wildcard, you'd want to bind them in tighter with another treaty.

I don't doubt that there are some real friendships behind this, though you've got some really mixed messages in this thread ('This was in the works for a long time' and 'Polar have changed, we have Penguin not Grub now' don't go together well), but after Polar's actions in this war I would have thought that the idea of treatying with them was not such a good one.

[Goldie]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='09 April 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1270859689' post='2254809']
Yes...and not all of them are members of NSO.
[/quote]

I never mentioned NSO Hal lol.

[Lennox]

I know that polar and fark have been working on this relationship for a very very long time. I may not agree with Polar's choice of direction, but congrats nonetheless.

[brentbee]

Congrats to both! I wish you both the best of luck and you have all my well wishes!


Oh, and Fark, you feel an itch back between your shoulder blades......thats the knife starting to enter.

[Proko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 April 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1270860059' post='2254814']
If it was that meaningless they wouldn't have signed it in the first place. Sure, it's not as bad as signing an MDP with Polar right now but it's still a sign of dubious judgement to align yourselves politically with them.

The RoK treaty does not bind Polar strongly enough to SF/SG, as can clearly be seen by the fact that they started a war that resulted in them fighting against SF directly. So it makes sense that, as a wildcard, you'd want to bind them in tighter with another treaty.

I don't doubt that there are some real friendships behind this, though you've got some really mixed messages in this thread ('This was in the works for a long time' and 'Polar have changed, we have Penguin not Grub now' don't go together well), but after Polar's actions in this war I would have thought that the idea of treatying with them was not such a good one.
[/quote]

Either we are going to respect the will of our treaty partners or we aren't. If your perception of us is correct, that we are this irrational monster that you're painting us to be, then one treaty with SF, or two treaties with SF, etc. would not necessarily matter. If we are going to ignore our treaty partners, then they are going to be ignored regardless of quantity. Right? I don't see why not. Additionally, there is no indication, from my perspective in Polar leadership as well as yours in Viridia, that Polaris will be signing treaties with any members of SF in the near future besides the Aqua twins. Unless you know something I don't.

Diffuse as the defenses supplied by Polar/Fark leadership, Polar membership, and interested bystanders may be, you haven't exactly labored to disprove them. This treaty is effectively a NAP. But for intellectual exercise, I'll give you another. Without this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attack by Polar in a fit of irrationality. With this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attacked by Polar in a fit of irrationality. Given that your perception of us as this wantonly aggressive machine is correct, and I would emphasize it is not, then Fark is basically making Pascal's Wager. They don't know if we'll turn into the Hulk, but in case we do, better to have a document saying we won't attack them than to not have one.

There, now you have another defense of the treaty.

[Voytek]

[quote name='Confusion' date='10 April 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1270855645' post='2254733']
I personally am not a fan of this treaty.
[/quote]
Nice pip.

[fireguy15207]

[quote name='deathcat' date='09 April 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1270856108' post='2254738']
Shouldn't you be trying to reform IPA or something?
[/quote]10/10/10


[quote name='Bob Janova' date='09 April 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1270860059' post='2254814']
If it was that meaningless they wouldn't have signed it in the first place. Sure, it's not as bad as signing an MDP with Polar right now but it's still a sign of dubious judgement to align yourselves politically with them.

The RoK treaty does not bind Polar strongly enough to SF/SG, as can clearly be seen by the fact that they started a war that resulted in them fighting against SF directly. So it makes sense that, as a wildcard, you'd want to bind them in tighter with another treaty.

I don't doubt that there are some real friendships behind this, though you've got some really mixed messages in this thread ('This was in the works for a long time' and 'Polar have changed, we have Penguin not Grub now' don't go together well), but after Polar's actions in this war I would have thought that the idea of treatying with them was not such a good one.
[/quote]
It's not throwing out mixed messages. We've gotten to know the alliance pretty well over the past few months, and the actions of one person, even their former Emperor, shouldn't reflect badly on the entire alliance.

Also, why have you suddenly start hating SF/CnG after this past war's outcome was divined? I can understand hating on the hegemony (not a proper noun), but we aren't taking up that mantle, despite being the strongest two blocs and being very friendly with one another. You've been in our sphere long enough to know that we're not evil, so why this irrational hate?

[Choader]

[quote name='fireguy15207' date='09 April 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1270865061' post='2254938']
We've gotten to know the alliance pretty well over the past few months, and the actions of one person, even their former Emperor, shouldn't reflect badly on the entire alliance.
[/quote]
To be fair, at the time every vocal member was cheering Grub on and publicly supporting his actions. If that doesn't make the whole alliance complicit in NpO's blunders nothing does.

[William Blake]

[quote name='Proko' date='09 April 2010 - 08:38 PM' timestamp='1270863471' post='2254893']
Either we are going to respect the will of our treaty partners or we aren't. If your perception of us is correct, that we are this irrational monster that you're painting us to be, then one treaty with SF, or two treaties with SF, etc. would not necessarily matter. If we are going to ignore our treaty partners, then they are going to be ignored regardless of quantity. Right? I don't see why not. Additionally, there is no indication, from my perspective in Polar leadership as well as yours in Viridia, that Polaris will be signing treaties with any members of SF in the near future besides the Aqua twins. Unless you know something I don't.

Diffuse as the defenses supplied by Polar/Fark leadership, Polar membership, and interested bystanders may be, you haven't exactly labored to disprove them. This treaty is effectively a NAP. But for intellectual exercise, I'll give you another. Without this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attack by Polar in a fit of irrationality. With this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attacked by Polar in a fit of irrationality. Given that your perception of us as this wantonly aggressive machine is correct, and I would emphasize it is not, then Fark is basically making Pascal's Wager. They don't know if we'll turn into the Hulk, but in case we do, better to have a document saying we won't attack them than to not have one.

There, now you have another defense of the treaty.
[/quote]
Careful there, Z, you might break someone's brain if you keep talking like that.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Choader' date='09 April 2010 - 06:13 PM' timestamp='1270865595' post='2254950']
To be fair, at the time every vocal member was cheering Grub on and publicly supporting his actions. If that doesn't make the whole alliance complicit in NpO's blunders nothing does.
[/quote]

And also to be fair, this is a PIAT.

[delendum]

[quote name='Proko' date='10 April 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1270863471' post='2254893']
Either we are going to respect the will of our treaty partners or we aren't. If your perception of us is correct, that we are this irrational monster that you're painting us to be, then one treaty with SF, or two treaties with SF, etc. would not necessarily matter. If we are going to ignore our treaty partners, then they are going to be ignored regardless of quantity. Right? I don't see why not. Additionally, there is no indication, from my perspective in Polar leadership as well as yours in Viridia, that Polaris will be signing treaties with any members of SF in the near future besides the Aqua twins. Unless you know something I don't.

Diffuse as the defenses supplied by Polar/Fark leadership, Polar membership, and interested bystanders may be, you haven't exactly labored to disprove them. This treaty is effectively a NAP. But for intellectual exercise, I'll give you another. Without this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attack by Polar in a fit of irrationality. With this treaty, Fark runs the risk of being attacked by Polar in a fit of irrationality. Given that your perception of us as this wantonly aggressive machine is correct, and I would emphasize it is not, then Fark is basically making Pascal's Wager. They don't know if we'll turn into the Hulk, but in case we do, better to have a document saying we won't attack them than to not have one.

There, now you have another defense of the treaty.
[/quote]

And so the thread has been won.

[DictatatorDan]

I dont see how we 'betrayed' NSO. We attacked GOD, not because they are a meatshield, but because quite frankly, they are a crappy alliance.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' date='10 April 2010 - 06:46 AM' timestamp='1270878400' post='2255234']
I dont see how we 'betrayed' NSO. We attacked GOD, not because they are a meatshield, but because quite frankly, they are a crappy alliance.
[/quote]

Those two sentences are mostly unrelated, and also make you look stupid.

Just a heads up.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Fark Dansker]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='09 April 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1270857271' post='2254754']It's no official announcement that New Polar Order is joining Superfriends, but c'mon, did anyone actually expect NSO to take this well regardless of the level of treaty? [/quote]

I expected them to have enough dignity and self respect not to exhibit their petty jealousy and insecurities like a spurned teen. But I tend to overestimate people.

[chris8967]

Congrats. Polar and Fark

[Wad of Lint]

[quote name='Fark Dansker' date='10 April 2010 - 05:08 AM' timestamp='1270890482' post='2255328']
I expected them to have enough dignity and self respect not to exhibit their petty jealousy and insecurities like a spurned teen. But I tend to overestimate people.
[/quote]

Worry not friend. I won't make the same mistake with you. I'll just keep my low opinion.

[AvengingAngel256]

Congrats on the Treaty and Good Luck to Both alliances in the future.

[BlkAK47_002]

I don't understand what the arguing is about. A PIAT means that a friendship is growing between two alliances. Considering that they should've been at odds with eachother during the last 2 conflicts last war, this is progress at work here. I don't see why people feel the need to bring the bad blood between Fark, Polaris and NSO into this thread or petty grudges between alliances leaders. Do you people live off of senseless drama or something?

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='delendum' date='09 April 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1270869434' post='2255046']
And so the thread has been won.
[/quote]
Unfortunatley not by a long shot. What he said was well put, very intelligent,and accurate, But people who do not share the same perspective, especially immature ones will just flame his post, or try to make him look like an idiot.

It's just sad that all of this bickering has been brought into a thread which acknowleges a friendship between these two.

[IronSoldier820]

[img]http://i28.tinypic.com/2vxj30n.gif[/img]

It's been a hazy morning following a long, crazy night. You just wake up to a post about some treaty between two gents and finding yourself in a thread that reminds yourself of how much you wish every announcement was posted as if it came from the Prohibition Era. [url=http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=4&p=000877]Sleuth Diplomacy[/url] be damned, you can't help but to break into a jig. Suddenly, you realize your post has become self-aware. What do you do?

[img]http://s593.photobucket.com/albums/tt19/333Stephen/th_whatwillyoudo.gif[/img]

[Bob Janova]

[quote]We've gotten to know the alliance pretty well over the past few months, and the actions of one person, even their former Emperor, shouldn't reflect badly on the entire alliance.[/quote]
Well, aside from the fact that in other threads we have SG claiming that Crymson's words at the start of that front [i]did[/i] reflect badly on the whole of TOP, we're not talking about words here. We're talking about the actions taken by Polar, the alliance. Those reflect badly on the whole alliance.

You can't have this both ways – either you think that the whole alliance matters, and therefore Polar as a whole did all that crazy stuff, or you think only the Emperor matters, in which case getting to know the other members is pointless.

[quote]I dont see how we 'betrayed' NSO. We attacked GOD, not because they are a meatshield, but because quite frankly, they are a crappy alliance. [/quote]
That doesn't make any sense ... why would you put a big hitter like Polar on a 'crappy alliance'?

[quote]If we are going to ignore our treaty partners, then they are going to be ignored regardless of quantity.[/quote]
Not necessarily, no. Typically when an alliance is conflicted it will go with the side that it has more ties with. You can see this in the pattern of broken treaties in UjW, BLEU war/noCB and Karma (not so easy this time as most people had non-chaining treaties so they were just ignored not broken). Having an extra treaty with one side makes you a lot more likely to roll with that side next time you end up between conflicting interests.

[quote]Also, why have you suddenly start hating SF/CnG after this past war's outcome was divined? I can understand hating on the hegemony (not a proper noun), but we aren't taking up that mantle, despite being the strongest two blocs and being very friendly with one another. You've been in our sphere long enough to know that we're not evil, so why this irrational hate? [/quote]
I've never liked certain alliances in SG, and they have shown in the last few months exactly why – and the peace terms for the just concluded war are another example of that. You, Fark, may not be taking up the mantle of Hegemony, but other members of SF and C&G are looking like trying it on.

I have not 'suddenly started hating'. For one thing, I don't hate you, and for another thing, it is not sudden – check out my comments on the Echelon peace terms in Karma, or Athens' attack on Ni. Any alliance that shows that kind of behaviour is going to get called out.

And to be honest I've been in SF sphere for only four months and in that time I've talked to many of you less than I did in Grämlins, so that's not really enough time and interaction to make any further judgements about you.

Edit: It's not 'just a NAP', it's a PIAT, and while it doesn't actually contain traditional treaty text, a PIAT would usually be taken to mean mandatory intelligence sharing and financial aid on request. But if you have to downplay a treaty then that should tell you something about the alliance you're signing it with

Edited April 10, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Emporor]

Interesting read.

Congrats.

[Proko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='10 April 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1270938023' post='2255848']
Not necessarily, no. Typically when an alliance is conflicted it will go with the side that it has more ties with. You can see this in the pattern of broken treaties in UjW, BLEU war/noCB and Karma (not so easy this time as most people had non-chaining treaties so they were just ignored not broken). Having an extra treaty with one side makes you a lot more likely to roll with that side next time you end up between conflicting interests.
[/quote]

Either we honor our treaties or we do not. Either we are reliable or we are not. You can enter into specifics about patterns of behavior regarding how an alliance will act in a war, but you are viewing those actions in the context of binding treaties. In purely military terms, this treaty is only binding in one way - that Polar and Fark cannot directly engage each other in combat. There is not even an optional defense clause on this treaty, so in theory this treaty should have no effect on military interaction with the exception of that single provision.

I know what you think of us, but how is this treaty hurting Fark in any [i]actual[/i] way? Unless you can prove that we are [b]more likely[/b] to attack our treaty partners than not our treaty partners, then Fark is losing next to nothing by signing this. Paint us with whatever colors you would like, but if you are correct that our unpredictability is endemic to the structure of Polaris itself (which I strongly do not believe it to be), then Fark has gained or lost nothing here. Nor have we bound ourselves further to Superfriends in any [i]real[/i] way, contrary to the perception that a treaty, no matter its content, inherently binds two alliances closer than they had been.

Hey Bob, let's sign an empty treaty.
[quote]
[u]The Empty Treaty[/u]
Article 1.
This treaty contains no provisions

Article 2.
This treaty cannot be amended in any way at any time.

Article 2a.
Ever.

Article 3.
Signatures

Signed for Proko:
Zbaldwin
Premier of Proko

Signed for Seria:
[/quote]

Now we are more likely to roll together if we ever have conflicting interests. Just sign

EDIT: Article 2 contradicts Article 1 But you get the point.

Edited April 10, 2010 by Proko

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Mansa Musa' date='10 April 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1270934600' post='2255806']
[img]http://i28.tinypic.com/2vxj30n.gif[/img]

It's been a hazy morning following a long, crazy night. You just wake up to a post about some treaty between two gents and finding yourself in a thread that reminds yourself of how much you wish every announcement was posted as if it came from the Prohibition Era. [url=http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=4&p=000877]Sleuth Diplomacy[/url] be damned, you can't help but to break into a jig. Suddenly, you realize your post has become self-aware. What do you do?

[img]http://s593.photobucket.com/albums/tt19/333Stephen/th_whatwillyoudo.gif[/img]
[/quote]
Get key