Nemesis Announcement

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='That-one-place' date='19 May 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1274235151' post='2302750']
I'm sure I can pull some strings, but first you can not openly bash Nemesis.

We are on the correct path and we are cruising down it smoothly.
[/quote]

I bash who I want, and you know it...

But I would love to come back to Nemesis and take one of the leadership roles if you want to, because I personally believe that you need it...

It's your choice

[That-one-place]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='19 May 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1274235330' post='2302758']
I bash who I want, and you know it...

But I would love to come back to Nemesis and take one of the leadership roles if you want to, because I personally believe that you need it...

It's your choice
[/quote]
As I said, you're more than welcome to apply, but since we are all about giving recommendations. If I were you I would stay with Hoo, he needs you. Remember?

[Krunk the Great]

Expected/0

Yeah, didn't see this one comin, LoSS and Nemesis been tight for long time.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='That-one-place' date='19 May 2010 - 03:30 AM' timestamp='1274236238' post='2302791']
As I said, you're more than welcome to apply, but since we are all about giving recommendations. If I were you I would stay with Hoo, he needs you. Remember?
[/quote]

He needed me...

Obviously, you guys need more help now...

[That-one-place]

Obviously you don't know your ex alliance too well.

[daggarz]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='19 May 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1274233411' post='2302691']
You know I have done my fair share of LoSS bashing but, I have to give them props for not letting Nemesis dictate how they run their foreign affairs. Because I think this has less to do with the PIAT itself and more to do Nemesis having a tantrum because LoSS thinks they run their own FA and expect to be supported by their allies in the choices they make. Way to support your allies Nemesis, real classy.
[/quote]

Yeah someone should go rogue on us for setting a precedent of practicing politics.

You sign a military treaty with the other side, we will show you our backside

[Choader]

From an outsider's perspective I'd say Nemesis did the right thing here. If your alliance and an ally are on different paths it takes more integrity to nip future problems in the bud rather than turning a blind eye until it blows up in your face. Why shouldn't Nemesis cut a treaty with an ally who develops relations with someone they dislike? It's the proper thing to do and if more alliances took a firm stance with these situations we'd all be better off for it. Sure, it's only an ODP but suppose LoSS defended TOOL at some point in the future, Nemesis would either face the embarrassment of not helping a high level ally or find themselves being dragged into a conflict on the opposite side of where other allies were.

LoSS should have realized that playful socializing is not in itself grounds for a signing a contract with an alliance. Every treaty of any level an alliance signs needs to be weighed against existing ones for compatibility, then if they don't mesh well you need to choose which one is more important to you. Unfortunately rather than making that decision themselves they made Nemesis make it for them.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Choader' date='19 May 2010 - 03:52 AM' timestamp='1274237555' post='2302838']
From an outsider's perspective I'd say Nemesis did the right thing here. If your alliance and an ally are on different paths it takes more integrity to nip future problems in the bud rather than turning a blind eye until it blows up in your face. Why shouldn't Nemesis cut a treaty with an ally who develops relations with someone they dislike? It's the proper thing to do and if more alliances took a firm stance with these situations we'd all be better off for it. Sure, it's only an ODP but suppose LoSS defended TOOL at some point in the future, Nemesis would either face the embarrassment of not helping a high level ally or find themselves being dragged into a conflict on the opposite side of where other allies were.

LoSS should have realized that playful socializing is not in itself grounds for a signing a contract with an alliance. Every treaty of any level an alliance signs needs to be weighed against existing ones for compatibility, then if they don't mesh well you need to choose which one is more important to you. Unfortunately rather than making that decision themselves they made Nemesis make it for them.
[/quote]


He shoots and he scores, that pretty much sums it up. In a logical fasion.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Choader' date='18 May 2010 - 09:52 PM' timestamp='1274237555' post='2302838']
From an outsider's perspective I'd say Nemesis did the right thing here. If your alliance and an ally are on different paths it takes more integrity to nip future problems in the bud rather than turning a blind eye until it blows up in your face. Why shouldn't Nemesis cut a treaty with an ally who develops relations with someone they dislike? It's the proper thing to do and if more alliances took a firm stance with these situations we'd all be better off for it. Sure, it's only an ODP but suppose LoSS defended TOOL at some point in the future, Nemesis would either face the embarrassment of not helping a high level ally or find themselves being dragged into a conflict on the opposite side of where other allies were.

LoSS should have realized that playful socializing is not in itself grounds for a signing a contract with an alliance. Every treaty of any level an alliance signs needs to be weighed against existing ones for compatibility, then if they don't mesh well you need to choose which one is more important to you. Unfortunately rather than making that decision themselves they made Nemesis make it for them.
[/quote]

so much for the whole "Friends>Infra" bit heh? whoops, nvm i forgot tis all about realpolitick now. if you ain't already tied to a certain side, you be screwed. then there is the fallout should someone slip up and attempt to make new friends.

trust me, i know all about this realpolitick crap and had hoped it would be different following Karma. i was dead wrong in that matter.

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='daggarz' date='18 May 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1274237457' post='2302834']
Yeah someone should go rogue on us for setting a precedent of practicing politics.

You sign a military treaty with the other side, we will show you our backside
[/quote]

The only thing your setting a precedent for, is how your other allies should look at you. Admin forbid they sign a low level treaty with someone you do not like. Or someone you decide is on "the other side". How long have you all been allies? And you dump them because they sign a PIAT? And thats how you treat your closest friends? Pathetic.

[Daikos]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 May 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1274238151' post='2302845']
so much for the whole "Friends>Infra" bit heh? whoops, nvm i forgot tis all about realpolitick now. if you ain't already tied to a certain side, you be screwed. then there is the fallout should someone slip up and attempt to make new friends.

trust me, i know all about this realpolitick crap and had hoped it would be different following Karma. i was dead wrong in that matter.
[/quote]

What the hell does this have to do with friends > infra? No, seriously.

If your friend goes and gets friendly with somebody you don't like then it alters your friendship. That's what happened here. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with friends > infra. This is no different from about 95% of other treaty cancellations where the reason is, "our goals were going in different directions" or whatever excuse it is that's tossed around these days. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Amossio]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='19 May 2010 - 04:08 AM' timestamp='1274238476' post='2302852']
The only thing your setting a precedent for, is how your other allies should look at you. Admin forbid they sign a low level treaty with someone you do not like. Or someone you decide is on "the other side". How long have you all been allies? And you dump them because they sign a PIAT? And thats how you treat your closest friends? Pathetic.
[/quote]

You don't know what went on, what is going on or what will go on, this why some things are best kept private instead of the usual bunch throwing opinions about situations they don't know much about.

[Daikos]

[quote name='Amossio' date='18 May 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1274238666' post='2302857']
You don't know what went on, what is going on or what will go on
[/quote]

That's pretty much TBB's life story.

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Choader' date='18 May 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1274237555' post='2302838']
From an outsider's perspective I'd say Nemesis did the right thing here. If your alliance and an ally are on different paths it takes more integrity to nip future problems in the bud rather than turning a blind eye until it blows up in your face. Why shouldn't Nemesis cut a treaty with an ally who develops relations with someone they dislike? It's the proper thing to do and if more alliances took a firm stance with these situations we'd all be better off for it. Sure, it's only an ODP but suppose LoSS defended TOOL at some point in the future, Nemesis would either face the embarrassment of not helping a high level ally or find themselves being dragged into a conflict on the opposite side of where other allies were.

LoSS should have realized that playful socializing is not in itself grounds for a signing a contract with an alliance. Every treaty of any level an alliance signs needs to be weighed against existing ones for compatibility, then if they don't mesh well you need to choose which one is more important to you. Unfortunately rather than making that decision themselves they made Nemesis make it for them.
[/quote]

As much as I agree with you (especially the second paragraph), I think cancelling over a ODP (or PIAT with Optional Def. clause w/e) is still a little over the top. If nothing else, downgrade the treaty between the two alliances. It seems obvious that for the most part the friendship is intact. If LoSS ever got into a spot Nemesis didn't like they would have no obligation to help.

[Mathias]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 May 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1274238151' post='2302845']
so much for the whole "Friends>Infra" bit heh? whoops, nvm i forgot tis all about realpolitick now. if you ain't already tied to a certain side, you be screwed. then there is the fallout should someone slip up and attempt to make new friends.

trust me, i know all about this realpolitick crap and had hoped it would be different following Karma. i was dead wrong in that matter.
[/quote]

You can't have friends your not allied with?

I'm not taking sides in this, but you can't sign treaties with every alliance you talk to on IRC. IAA learned that the hard way with the Invicta treaty; it just wasn't good for the alliance. There's a difference between defending your friends, and making obligations you can't (or down the line may not want to) keep.

That said, I wish Nemesis and LoSS the best of luck in repairing relations. I don't think it will be two hard for these two to resolve their differences, they're just too damn close.

[Daikos]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='18 May 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1274238870' post='2302861']
As much as I agree with you (especially the second paragraph), I think cancelling over a ODP (or PIAT with Optional Def. clause w/e) is still a little over the top. If nothing else, downgrade the treaty between the two alliances. It seems obvious that for the most part the friendship is intact. If LoSS ever got into a spot Nemesis didn't like they would have no obligation to help.
[/quote]

A downgrade would've brought them down to an ODP (I believe) which they already have through NOIR.

[Salmia]

[quote name='Choader' date='18 May 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1274237555' post='2302838']
From an outsider's perspective I'd say Nemesis did the right thing here. If your alliance and an ally are on different paths it takes more integrity to nip future problems in the bud rather than turning a blind eye until it blows up in your face. Why shouldn't Nemesis cut a treaty with an ally who develops relations with someone they dislike? It's the proper thing to do and if more alliances took a firm stance with these situations we'd all be better off for it. Sure, it's only an ODP but suppose LoSS defended TOOL at some point in the future, Nemesis would either face the embarrassment of not helping a high level ally or find themselves being dragged into a conflict on the opposite side of where other allies were.

LoSS should have realized that playful socializing is not in itself grounds for a signing a contract with an alliance. Every treaty of any level an alliance signs needs to be weighed against existing ones for compatibility, then if they don't mesh well you need to choose which one is more important to you. Unfortunately rather than making that decision themselves they made Nemesis make it for them.
[/quote]

So, during peace talks, TOOL was told that we need to ally more to the other side. So unless we are only willing to completely drop all our teaties and ally to the other side only, we shouldn't bother? Hypocrisy then because then we should not be chided for defending and only having treaties to our side if every time we try to "reach" out to the other side or to another alliance this is the type of response we get.

TOOL doesn't believe in sides. TOOL believes in friendships. This is not a light treaty signed just out of a whim. It grew out of a real respect for each other and apparently that is grounds for Nemesis to cancel with LoSS.

And so alliances should never treaty to each other because of so called sides? Yes you should take into account your allies but when you stop it from signing with people you've actually made friends of, what is the point of treaties? It is not all strategy or at least that is not how TOOL operates. That may be how other alliances choose.. but that is how they decide to do it. After this, the hypocrisy is laughable. Don't complain next time if alliances are on the wrong side in the future because it is clear even if an alliance tries to reach out, unless they're completely willing to abandon their allies, they're forced to remain alienated to their side and it is sheer hypocrisy to claim that alliances didn't try to reach out when they get this type of reaction when they do.

I am sorry that TOOL's PIAT with LoSS caused this much of an uproar. I didn't know LoSS was that untrustable from a closest ally. It is optional and it is laughable to think they'd enter a war via it.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

This is all really funny.

Glad to see the treaty gone though. I always hated this one.

It's a good move for both of you.

[Felix von Agnu]

[quote name='Daikos' date='18 May 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1274238936' post='2302864']
A downgrade would've brought them down to an ODP (I believe) which they already have through NOIR.
[/quote]
True, but the symbolic value of keeping a downgraded treaty may have saved both sides a decent amount of grief.

[Lord Fingolfin]

One of the reportedly closest friendships on Planet Bob is cast aside because they signed a PIAT. What exactly has TOOL done that is so heinous that they are such a percieved threat to Nemesis?

[Daikos]

[quote name='Felix von Agnu' date='18 May 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1274239050' post='2302868']
True, but the symbolic value of keeping a downgraded treaty may have saved both sides a decent amount of grief.
[/quote]

Possibly. I have a feeling the vultures would've come flocking here one way or another.

And anyway, repetitive treaties are

[daggarz]

[quote name='Salmia' date='19 May 2010 - 02:15 PM' timestamp='1274238939' post='2302865']
So, during peace talks, TOOL was told that we need to ally more to the other side. So unless we are only willing to completely drop all our teaties and ally to the other side only, we shouldn't bother? Hypocrisy then because then we should not be chided for defending and only having treaties to our side if every time we try to "reach" out to the other side or to another alliance this is the type of response we get.

TOOL doesn't believe in sides. TOOL believes in friendships. This is not a light treaty signed just out of a whim. It grew out of a real respect for each other and apparently that is grounds for Nemesis to cancel with LoSS.

And so alliances should never treaty to each other because of so called sides? Yes you should take into account your allies but when you stop it from signing with people you've actually made friends of, what is the point of treaties? It is not all strategy or at least that is not how TOOL operates. That may be how other alliances choose.. but that is how they decide to do it. After this, the hypocrisy is laughable. Don't complain next time if alliances are on the wrong side in the future because it is clear even if an alliance tries to reach out, unless they're completely willing to abandon their allies, they're forced to remain alienated to their side and it is sheer hypocrisy to claim that alliances didn't try to reach out when they get this type of reaction when they do.

I am sorry that TOOL's PIAT with LoSS caused this much of an uproar. I didn't know LoSS was that untrustable from a closest ally. It is optional and it is laughable to think they'd enter a war via it.
[/quote]

Start with a PIAT, then work your way up to a military treaty. Don't go straight for the military treaty, besides, not everyone will be happy about people changing sides, or trying to. Keep the web simple sister

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 May 2010 - 04:18 AM' timestamp='1274239097' post='2302872']
One of the reportedly closest friendships on Planet Bob is cast aside because they signed a PIAT. What exactly has TOOL done that is so heinous that they are such a percieved threat to Nemesis?
[/quote]

idk, Why have the odp if you never plan on using it? it's redundant then and should have been left out the treaty? If you did use it and LoSS decided to jump in on a war to help TOOL, then they may have to fight for someone they disslike and fight against someone they like. Or is that not the way it works?

if im wrong correct me, i am not into the politics of this game.

But dont use the "we will never call for them line" Never say never.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Hiro Nakara

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Daikos' date='18 May 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1274238531' post='2302854']
What the hell does this have to do with friends > infra? No, seriously.

If your friend goes and gets friendly with somebody you don't like then it alters your friendship. That's what happened here. This doesn't have a damn thing to do with friends > infra. This is no different from about 95% of other treaty cancellations where the reason is, "our goals were going in different directions" or whatever excuse it is that's tossed around these days. Quit trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
[/quote]

if you noticed who i directed my reply to and read what that person wrote, you would understand my post then. i did not comment one bit on the Nemesis-LoSS treaty so much as i commented on what Choader wrote.

I am saddened by the Nemesis-LoSS treaty and frankly, i find that allowing a very minor treaty to cancel a treaty with a longtime friend is just pathetic. it was not like LoSS was going around and treatying everyone on the other side, it was one treaty and a minor one at that. to basically allow that to push other minor things to this point is just plain bad.

and no, just because a friend becomes friends with someone you don't like, it should change nothing. when i was in IAA, IAA did not like the fact that GATO became allied to NSO but that changed nothing about how they felt about GATO. GATO is a grown alliance and capable of making their own decisions. IAA may not like NSO all that much, but IAA trusts GATO and thus, nothing in that relationship changed one bit. that shows true friendship.

telling your friend they cannot make new friends because you don't like them shows immaturity and lack of trust. it shows that the friendship is more about using than actually being friends.

[quote name='Mathias' date='18 May 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1274238906' post='2302863']
You can't have friends your not allied with?

I'm not taking sides in this, but you can't sign treaties with every alliance you talk to on IRC. IAA learned that the hard way with the Invicta treaty; it just wasn't good for the alliance. There's a difference between defending your friends, and making obligations you can't (or down the line may not want to) keep.

That said, I wish Nemesis and LoSS the best of luck in repairing relations. I don't think it will be two hard for these two to resolve their differences, they're just too damn close.
[/quote]

the difference with the IAA-Invicta treaty was IAA jumped in to the deep end with an MDoAP right off the bat. this was a minor PIAT/ODP.

Also, i never stated anything about signing treaties with everyone.

[That-one-place]

[quote]But dont use the "we will never call for them line" Never say never. [/quote]

I could not agree with this more!