A LOSS knowledge dump

[AirMe]

Reading the Wiki.....why do you guys have GW1 classified as a stalemate? You were on the winning side. It might not have been a crushing victory, but it was a win none the less.

[jaaku]

[quote]Really? Nice to know we were not friends. Glad TPF never went out of its way to lookout for you all... oh wait. Real classy LoSS.[/quote]
With all due respect TBB, aside from Caesar, who else was in true contact on a gov to gov level with LOSS and TPF? Let alone a member to member level. Although I will agree, DR's post is a little...backhanded.

[quote]Echelon = Jaaku was really the only tie to them. There wasn't much communication outside of him with them.[/quote]
this is true. I <3 Echelon, but that treaty should have been reviewed way before it was. At least in an effort to boost relations.
[quote]Valhalla = never should have happened. I think we had two guys that were friends with them and the rest of the gov either didn't care or didn't want them.[/quote]
It was exactly two. And one of the people who set the treaty up on their end left. I think the logic of signing that treaty was "we're going to end up defending them anyways"
[quote]Zenith = Never should have happened. Again it was one or two guys that were friends with them and the rest of gov didn't care. What got this passed was they had Duncan King. That was the only person anyone really knew.[/quote]
Odd, I seem to remember the majority of gov wanting to keep that treaty.


[quote]Aboooe: I don't know if the word stole is the right one. Maybe bribed with lots of cookies fits better. Jaaku always finds his way home, where ever that may be.[/quote]
This is disturbingly true. Then again, I just can't resist the sexiness of CGB :awe:



Ok, I'm done with the nostalgia, questions.

Who's the current MoG?

what alliances are you currently looking at extending relationships with?

will you sell me tech?

When will your economy on the boards be fixed?

and will you ever break into a serious sanction competitor?

[Biazt]

Not enough drama around LOSS? Well, we can start calling you TRASH CAN again if that will help

[Sir Sci]

I remember fighting a LoSS guy during the Second Polar War when you guys were the NAAC's protectorate, and then being your allies in The League. Good times.

[Desert Ratz]

[quote name='AirMe' date='17 May 2010 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1274153846' post='2301864']
Reading the Wiki.....why do you guys have GW1 classified as a stalemate? You were on the winning side. It might not have been a crushing victory, but it was a win none the less.
[/quote]

Thx for bringing that up. I have been meaning to bring that up to Slade who keeps up our wiki.

[quote name='jaaku' date='17 May 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1274158035' post='2301939']
Ok, I'm done with the nostalgia, questions.

Who's the current MoG?

what alliances are you currently looking at extending relationships with?

will you sell me tech?

When will your economy on the boards be fixed?

and will you ever break into a serious sanction competitor?
[/quote]

Phoebus

We are down 2 allies recently with LOUD disbanding and the recent Nemesis cancellation. I would say our focus is to make sure our ties with our current allies take priority over everything else.

No. Your card keeps getting declined.

Fixed

Activity has been our priority and it has never been better. Lately we have been getting an influx of new nations and it has really jumpstarted the alliance. You will see us in contention soon enough.

[quote name='Biazt' date='17 May 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1274161371' post='2301987']
Not enough drama around LOSS? Well, we can start calling you TRASH CAN again if that will help
[/quote]

We have plenty of drama currently but we take pride in the TRASH CAN reference. Good history between our alliances. I still think we should sign the MTP for !@#$% and giggles.

[quote name='Sir Sci' date='17 May 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1274161851' post='2301992']
I remember fighting a LoSS guy during the Second Polar War when you guys were the NAAC's protectorate, and then being your allies in The League. Good times.
[/quote]

Spirit of 06! Sup!

[LordSlade]

Probably because I'm an idiot and didn't back read. I'm assuming your talking about the end of the Karma war when I said this:

[quote]In GW1 a stalemate ended the war, in GW2 LOSS won its battle, but its allies lost the overall war, in GW3 LOSS lost everything, but now in the Karma war not only was LOSS leaving the battlefield victorious, but in the overall war LOSS’s allies were doing the same. [/quote]

Its a mistake on my part. I even acknowledge the win in the actual Great War portion of the history:
[quote]Calling on all their friends, which LoSS was apart of, LUE stood up to The Orders and formed the CoaLUEtion, a wartime coalition built to fight against the growing power of The Orders. LOSS was fighting on the side of the CoaLUEition and participated in its first victory in a large-scale war. [/quote]

Honestly the only reason I can think of for the mistake is I was on vacation from BOB for a few months while writing it and didn't pay close enough to details.

[Timeline]

Well i do not think you can class the the orders vs the coaLUEition a win for the CoaLUEition, dam the orders came out of that war more powerful then they went in, damn if thats what you call losing, i am willing to lose every war

[Jens of the desert]

[quote name='daggarz' date='27 April 2010 - 05:39 AM' timestamp='1272343134' post='2276938']
LordSlade, please come on IRC as I really want to talk to you!
Also LoSS contains the finest friends I have on CN. They are to Nemesis as Chocolate is to a fat kid.. freaking delicious
[/quote]
Oh my, how quickly things can change.

[Bob Ilyani]

Not really, actually. Maybe this isn't shared by everyone, but I consider LoSS to be good people and my friends, treaty or not. I'm not going to stop having fun times with them and respect them greatly.

EDIT: Spelling. >_<

Edited May 18, 2010 by Bob Ilyani

[Le Pieux]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' date='18 May 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1274215591' post='2302391']
Not really, actually. Maybe this isn't shared by everyone, but I consider LoSS to be good people and my friends, treaty or not. I'm not going to stop having fun times with them and respect them greatly.

EDIT: Spelling. >_<
[/quote]
Yeah I agree with Bob Ilyani I will still party with nemesis members and steal their pies.

[Hunterman1043]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' date='18 May 2010 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1274215591' post='2302391']
Not really, actually. Maybe this isn't shared by everyone, but I consider LoSS to be good people and my friends, treaty or not. I'm not going to stop having fun times with them and respect them greatly.

EDIT: Spelling. >_<
[/quote]

I like ur resources.

[Barnaby von Farter]

Broadly, what was the dynamic of the working relationship between [s]Genesis[/s] Nemesis and LOSS in the weeks leading up to the announcement of the treaty cancellation? How did that dynamic contrast from what you would consider to be an 'ideal' working relationship with an outside alliance?

These answers may provide me with enough information to quietly speculate upon the reasons behind your recent treaty cancellation. Thank you for your time.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Barnaby von Farter

[legion-x]

im assuming you mean nemesis?, we were fine except for this treaty we had many meetings about this and they knew that we would probably sign it, we knew they would put the treaty up to review but all in all the common consensus was that this was a arguement between brothers and that we would get through this.

[Barnaby von Farter]

Sorry, yes. I meant Nemesis (damn it, self). Edited my previous post.

Legion-x, the only part I fully understand from your answer is that an argument was involved.

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='legion-x' date='18 May 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1274232835' post='2302674']
im assuming you mean nemesis?, we were fine except for this treaty we had many meetings about this and they knew that we would probably sign it, we knew they would put the treaty up to review but all in all the common consensus was that this was a arguement between brothers and that we would get through this.
[/quote]

And the assumption from our part was so as well. The plan to cancel the treaty was not in place until after the treaty was posted and we read the optional defense clause within it.

[Timeline]

[quote name='legion-x' date='19 May 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1274232835' post='2302674']
im assuming you mean nemesis?, we were fine except for this treaty we had many meetings about this and they knew that we would probably sign it, we knew they would put the treaty up to review but all in all the common consensus was that this was a arguement between brothers and that we would get through this.
[/quote]


I am sure all the meetings and such was about a PAIT, but when you make it a ODP not only did you lie to your "brothers" but you tried to take them for a fool, now you can dress the treaty up as much as you like, damn you can name it or call it anything, but when you have this:

[quote]Section VI
Should either alliance find themselves at war, members are encouraged to provide aid where possible to members of the that signatory, however such action is voluntary. Should Military, Diplomatic, Financial or other forms of Aid be needed by either party they may submit a private request for such aid to the other party. Should the request be denied, a written response should be privately conveyed within 48 hours of the request.[/quote]

it is not longer a PAIT, now you can call it one as you see fit, but it is not a PAIT, it is in fact a ODP, damn I talked to a member of TOOL governement and they stated that all PAIT's for TOOL are ODP, thats why they have that clause ?


but hell I am sure you already knew that.

So I guess what i am asking is, you had claimed on oooo so many times that Nemesis and IAA was your closet "brothers" within CN, why did you feel the need to lie and keep the ODP a secert ? why call it a PAIT when it isnt ?

[LordSlade]

Both IAA and Nemesis knew 2 days after I found out about talks with TOOL. When I found out, nothing was real, it was all still talk and speculation and stuff like that. When talks with TOOL became real we made sure are allies knew we were talking. They knew from that very point that an ODP clause was going to be attached as I told them it is that way with all TOOL PIATs. That very topic was what all the debate was about. Things were worked out with IAA as they understood that the treaty wouldn't be upgraded to a real full blown military treaty and it was supposed to be symbolic. We couldn't seem to get things worked out with Nemesis, but on their request we did at least put things on hold until after their terms with TOOL were finished. After the terms ended conversations moved forward.

So, "why did you feel the need to lie and keep the ODP a secert ?" is, well, a false statement or at least a misunderstood one. Everyone knew from the start that an ODP clause was involved with the PIAT.

Edited May 19, 2010 by LordSlade

[silentkiller]

And here we have Timline who obviously lacks the very basic knowledge of CN treaties.

First of all the treaty is called a PIAT not PAIT or PITA.

Secondly 1/4 of this treaty, yeah thats right a whole fourth!!, is dedicated to "A". Know what that stands for? Yeah thats right [u][b]aid[/b][/u]. Now just because Nemesis is politically inept that they didnt think that the Aid in the PIAT actually might entail mailitary aid is no one's problem but theirs. What makes this even more hilarious is that the LOSS-Nemesis MDoAP is very likely a non-chanining treaty, meaning they would'nt even have to defend LOSS if they decide that in future they might want to defend TOOL. So all in all Nemesis cancelled on Loss because they got butt hurt that Loss had the audacity to sign a treaty with "OMG THE OTHER SIDE!!!"

[Brutilius]

Now really was there any need for this at all?

Does it concern you?

This thread doesn't have anything to do with the treaty or you, so stay out and mind your own if you don't mind.

[LordSlade]

I agree with Betto. Because of the way things are in other threads and the fact that there is a gag order on LOSS in another thread, to keep things civil and spilling over to a place where LOSS can talk, I'm going to say this QnA is over.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1274281009' post='2303343']
And here we have Timline who obviously lacks the very basic knowledge of CN treaties.

First of all the treaty is called a PIAT not PAIT or PITA.[/quote]

lol you spell funny is all this amounts to. So I will now point out some grammatical errors in your post from this point onwards. Just because I can.

[quote]Secondly 1/4 of this treaty, yeah thats right a whole fourth!!, is dedicated to "A". Know what that stands for? Yeah thats right [u][b]aid[/b][/u]. Now just because Nemesis is politically inept that they didnt think that the Aid in the PIAT actually might entail mailitary aid is no one's problem but theirs.[/quote]

What's a mailitary? Here we have SilentKiller who obviously lacks the very basic knowledge of English language.

We were informed it was a PIAT, and not an ODP. The name of the treaty is completely unimportant to us, the wording within it is the only thing that matters, and it's worded like an ODP. Being misinformed, most likely unintentionally, is certainly not our fault, although it does present a problem for us.

[quote]What makes this even more hilarious is that the LOSS-Nemesis MDoAP is very likely a non-chanining treaty, meaning they would'nt even have to defend LOSS if they decide that in future they might want to defend TOOL. So all in all Nemesis cancelled on Loss because they got butt hurt that Loss had the audacity to sign a treaty with "OMG THE OTHER SIDE!!!"
[/quote]

What's a would'nt? Here we have SilentKiller who obviously lacks the very basic knowledge of English language.

The treaty was chaining, we would have had the opportunity to back out of defending the LoSS if they decided to enact the ODP. Perhaps the fact that this was the case should lead you to believe TOOL wasn't the sole reason the treaty was cancelled? It's the logical conclusion to draw from the situation. No, that doesn't fit in with your insatiable lust for drama, so it's conveniently ignored.

Get a clue about the situation please. Also get a dictionary or use an online dictionary before you start calling out members on spelling mistakes you pathetic pedant.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys

[silentkiller]

[quote]We were informed it was a PIAT, and not an ODP. The name of the treaty is completely unimportant to us, the wording within it is the only thing that matters, and it's worded like an ODP. Being misinformed, most likely unintentionally, is certainly not our fault, although it does present a problem for us.[/quote]

Thank you for ignoring my post completely, no really. PIAT does have a aid clause in it. Just because you seem to have missed it is no one's fault but your own.



[quote][b]The treaty was chaining, we would have had the opportunity to back out of defending the LoSS if they decided to enact the ODP.[/b] Perhaps the fact that this was the case should lead you to believe TOOL wasn't the sole reason the treaty was cancelled? It's the logical conclusion to draw from the situation. [b]No, that doesn't fit in with your insatiable lust for drama[/b], so it's conveniently ignored.

[/quote]

Surely you mean non-chaining? Also sure, we can all just hug around all day and pretend to be BFF's. The fact the a Loss government member seems to think you cancelled it due to the TOOL treaty is good enough for a person with "insatiable lust for drama".



[quote]What's a mailitary? Here we have SilentKiller who obviously lacks the very basic knowledge of English language.[/quote]

That's allright as long you are here to correct my grammar I'd rather not waste my time

Edited May 19, 2010 by silentkiller

[Barnaby von Farter]

[quote name='Brutilius' date='19 May 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1274281839' post='2303357']
Now really was there any need for this at all?

Does it concern you?

This thread doesn't have anything to do with the treaty or you, so stay out and mind your own if you don't mind.
[/quote]

This thread is a LoSS Q&A topic...recently I asked a question about the relationship dynamic between Nemesis and LoSS, and here we are.

I could see how it might concern others, insofar as wanting to know more about FA-related nuances involving the alliance hosting the Q&A topic, and their thoughts on the FA-related nuances of former treaty partners. Particularly if I was involved with FA on behalf of an alliance which might have thoughts of treatying with either Nemesis or LoSS, or managing communications between my alliance and an alliance treatied to either Nemesis or LoSS.

Personally, I'm not involved in ODN's foreign affairs at all. Mostly because of Joracy's underbite...makes me uncomfortable.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1274283077' post='2303376']
Thank you for ignoring my post completely, no really. PIAT does have a aid clause in it. Just because you seem to have missed it is no one's fault but your own.[/quote]

PIAT's have an aid clause in them, what are you trying to prove? Not all PIAT's include military aid, I've personally been involved in a couple that don't. Those that do make the aid clause an optional defence clause, and the treaty an optional defence treaty. You can call it a PIAT if you want, hell call it an MADP, the fact remains that the text of the treaty reads as an ODP, which for Nemesis makes it an ODP. We weren't given the text of the treaty, we were informed it wouldn't have optional defence.

[quote]Surely you mean non-chaining? Also sure, we can all just hug around all day and pretend to be BFF's. The fact the a Loss government member seems to think you cancelled it due to the TOOL treaty is good enough for a person with "insatiable lust for drama".[/quote]

Said LoSS government member resigned from the Triumvirate and a current Triumvir immediately posted saying it wasn't the prevailing opinion amongst LoSS members. Miss that post though? To busy warbling on about something you know little of. To take the post of one recent retired government member over a current Triumvir does seem to be indicative of someone just looking for some drama actually.

[quote]That's allright as long you are here to correct my grammar I'd rather not waste my time
[/quote]

Good to see you have your priorities in order. You'll waste time playing the pedant over a poster's grammar and spelling but you'd rather not waste the time getting yours right.

[legion-x]

this is a LOSS Q&A ask questions dont argue in here if you want to debate who was right and who was wrong thats what nemesis's cancellation thread is for.