memoryproblems Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='19 May 2010 - 04:18 AM' timestamp='1274260701' post='2303180'] Like an optional defence clause? [/quote] I would call it just a very liberal assistance clause, but it did say PIAT at the top of the treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 I despair, I really do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 congratulations to both parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='memoryproblems' date='19 May 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1274261881' post='2303190'] I would call it just a very liberal assistance clause, but it did say PIAT at the top of the treaty. [/quote] And my amplifier goes up to eleven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Schattenmann' date='19 May 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1274247445' post='2303051'] I couldn't find a crayon but here it is: As long as an alliance has treaties, it is allied along a certain axis. TOOL has a bunch of treaties that put it on an axis that Nemesis doesn't like. I've also passed up a low-level treaty with TOOL because I don't like their sphere. Nemesis doesn't have to justify why they don't want to be linked to TOOL and its sphere. The fact of the matter is that LoSS's treaty to TOOL would have linked Nemesis to TOOL's sphere, and the cancellation of the treaty is the only logical step to correct the situation Nemesis was put in when LoSS picked TOOL over Nemesis. Alliances base decisions on who they're going to ally on who that prospective ally is treatied to EVERY DAY, I don't understand why it's blowing your mind that Nemesis acted to preserve its own integrity of foreign policy. "Sides" might be fracturing, but they're still there just smaller. CoJ is allied to Nemesis and Browncoats--they're on our side. Invicta has expressed their undying love for NPO, they're on NPO's side. Get it? Rhetorical question, don't reply. [/quote] Why is the assumtion that LoSS is being lured to the "other side"? Why is the assumtion not that TOOL is being lured to the "other side"? Nemesis and LoSS are still connected by an ODP, and we have been told they they take those more serious then anyone else. So why publicly cancel their own treaty when they are still tied? To publicly chastise an ally? Could they not maybe support their ally? Do they give LoSS so little credit that LoSS could not be making a move to increase the power of its side? Of course now we jave members of Nemesis saying it is not the treaty that they and LoSS are not close anymore. Maybe that is true and they were just looking for an excuse to dump them. That would make more sense then the idea LoSS is so gullible that they are being lured to the "other side" and not the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) Hey atleast this dispels the theory thet "ex-hegemony" alliances are free to sign with whoever they want. That one gave me a right laugh Edited May 19, 2010 by silentkiller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amossio Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) [quote name='The AUT' date='19 May 2010 - 06:09 AM' timestamp='1274245732' post='2303021'] That's fine but now Nemesis is being called out for its unwarranted hate towards TOOL. [/quote] I like the way some are still throwing in their opinions without know the reality of events. The amusing factor is that both Nemesis and LoSS are saying we should move on, while the outsiders try and stir things up. Stay classy guys. Edited May 19, 2010 by Amossio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Webster Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='The Big Bad' date='19 May 2010 - 03:52 AM' timestamp='1274266336' post='2303215'] Why is the assumtion that LoSS is being lured to the "other side"? Why is the assumtion not that TOOL is being lured to the "other side"? Nemesis and LoSS are still connected by an ODP, and we have been told they they take those more serious then anyone else. So why publicly cancel their own treaty when they are still tied? To publicly chastise an ally? Could they not maybe support their ally? Do they give LoSS so little credit that LoSS could not be making a move to increase the power of its side? Of course now we jave members of Nemesis saying it is not the treaty that they and LoSS are not close anymore. Maybe that is true and they were just looking for an excuse to dump them. That would make more sense then the idea LoSS is so gullible that they are being lured to the "other side" and not the other way around. [/quote] As far as I know, attempts were made to downgrade the treaty. If you're having communications issues with an ally and their FA direction could put you in a weird spot, it makes sense to remove anything mandatory before weirdness begins in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 If Nemesis does it, I like it. Suck on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Choader' date='18 May 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1274244387' post='2302983'] I wasn't going to re-comment here but I believe you're misinterpreting my last post. You said my line of thinking is pure realpolitik and is incompatible with the Friends>Infra propaganda line, I don't see where you got that. I don't believe for a second that Nemesis was looking out for their infra when canceling on LoSS, and I certainly don't think they can't be friends without an obligation to defend them. LoSS could have easily developed friendships with TOOL without a treaty in much the same way. The fact is that friendship is a loose concept in a place like this where the most interaction you'll get with someone is cracking jokes on IRC, I can make enjoyable small talk with someone from virtually any alliance but that doesn't mean the next step is to make a treaty announcement. You're in DAWN now Doch, not too long ago you were in Gre. Don't you think it's possible you could find yourself having a nice conversation with a couple current Gramlins? If you did does that mean it's appropriate for you to push your alliance for a treaty with them? Of course not, treaties are signed for a large variety of reasons and e-friendship is only the icebreaker. [/quote] i can see where you are going but the way you stated it made it appear that if alliance A and alliance B are allied, then alliance B should never be capable of allying with anyone that alliance A does not like. that to me is just plain ridiculous. if alliance A and alliance B had a true and strong friendship, it should not matter who alliance B allies. and i love how we have people commenting on our no one but Nemesis knows the thought process or what took place for Nemesis to cancel this treaty, yet many of those same people go around and state that LoSS and TOOL allied simply cuz they had a chat one day and decided to treaty one another... as for me being in DAWN, well i do talk to members of Gre when i am on IRC. i have talked with Matthew, Ertyy, Toboggon, Omas and others. considering the current relationship between DAWN and Gremlins it should be obvious that even if i was somehow gov in DAWN, that there would be no treaty. LoSS and TOOL on the other hand had no such relationship at that time. we have seen many alliances that had just got done fighting one another and then treaty one another. [quote name='shahenshah' date='19 May 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1274249120' post='2303076'] Sometimes alliances are blamed for being always on 'other side' but when they reach out, attempts and actions are made to restrict those moves, (perhaps indirectly and not primarily that as a reason, tho its one of those side-effects) and maintain divisions along the same old lines, lines where one side is hegemonic and where one side is under terms/weak/curbstomped heh, this is the story since end of Karma. Friendships are conditional, you are expected to ditch your friends in order to tie along with someone on the 'other' side, only after that has been done can you become BFFs. It does makes strategic sense for hegemony-tied alliances to maintain a clear and advantageous division of the web to sustain its power, even if the actions may be primarily done for other reasons. [/quote] well to be fair, this was done under NPO's hegemony as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 While Nemesis and LoSS remain friends, the treaty is no more. Sad to see this treaty go, but I guess, Nemesis did what it felt was best in the situation. For sure, the relationship that these two have, such a step would not have been a foregone conclusion for them. And no, this does not mean that alliances are not free to reach out and reconnect with people, regardless of which "side" they are perceived as being on. Agreed, it is not easy, but it is doable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='19 May 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1274281118' post='2303345'] While Nemesis and LoSS remain friends, the treaty is no more. Sad to see this treaty go, but I guess, Nemesis did what it felt was best in the situation. For sure, the relationship that these two have, such a step would not have been a foregone conclusion for them. And no, this does not mean that alliances are not free to reach out and reconnect with people, regardless of which "side" they are perceived as being on. Agreed, it is not easy, but it is doable. [/quote] Sure it is doable but only if the alliance on the "karma"/"New Hegemony"/"pepsi" side doesnt mind getting some if its treaties cancelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1274281247' post='2303346'] Sure it is doable but only if the alliance on the "karma"/"New Hegemony"/"pepsi" side doesnt mind getting some if its treaties cancelled. [/quote] Just because someone fought for the Karma coalition does not mean they have to completely support every political move their allies make. This certainly does not smell of Continuum style political isolation. I see it (with my limit viewpoint mind you) as a "Hey man, you do your thing over there and I'll do my thing over here. But you let me know if !@#$ starts to go down because you know I'm down" and whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1274281247' post='2303346'] Sure it is doable but only if the alliance on the "karma"/"New Hegemony"/"pepsi" side doesnt mind getting some if its treaties cancelled. [/quote] I see that, whilst NPO has lost their power, they haven't lost the repeat things over and over until people think it's true style of propaganda they so excelled in. Edited May 19, 2010 by Poyplemonkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='19 May 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1274281845' post='2303358'] I see that, whilst NPO has lost their power, they haven't lost the repeat things over and over until people think it's true style of propaganda they so excelled in. [/quote] We did learn it from you guys afterall . And I see you learnt well from us as well. Dismiss everything by attacking the person rather than the argument. You make us all in NPO very proud Edited May 19, 2010 by silentkiller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 04:14 PM' timestamp='1274282036' post='2303363'] We did learn it from you guys afterall . And I see you learnt well from us as well. Dismiss everything by attacking the person rather than the argument. You make us all in NPO very proud [/quote] How hilariously ironic that you'd call me up on this given your latest post in the LoSS question and answer session. I'm dismissing everything because you're completely wrong, I'm not attacking your argument because Nemesis doesn't owe you an explanation about the intricacies of our alliance to alliance relationships. There are plenty of posts in here contrary to your point, you just decide to run with the one that fuels your need for drama the best. The 'attack' on your person seems excusable given how it was completely spot on, besides just happening to be my chosen method of dismissing your crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 I can understand Nemesis' motives for this cancellation well. Keep on going Nemesis, you are doing great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='19 May 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1274282761' post='2303369'] How hilariously ironic that you'd call me up on this given your latest post in the LoSS question and answer session. I'm dismissing everything because you're completely wrong, I'm not attacking your argument because Nemesis doesn't owe you an explanation about the intricacies of our alliance to alliance relationships. There are plenty of posts in here contrary to your point, you just decide to run with the one that fuels your need for drama the best. The 'attack' on your person seems excusable given how it was completely spot on, besides just happening to be my chosen method of dismissing your crap. [/quote] I obviously hit a nerve there. I am sorry, would you like some candy? The fact that a government member of Loss thinks that the TOOL treaty was the reason for cancellation says enough. But hey you keep on trying to pretend it didn't play a part. What did you say again? "keep saying something until the other side gives up". You get top marks for effectively using that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1274283542' post='2303384'] I obviously hit a nerve there. I am sorry, would you like some candy? The fact that a government member of Loss thinks that the TOOL treaty was the reason for cancellation says enough. But hey you keep on trying to pretend it didn't play a part. What did you say again? "keep saying something until the other side gives up". You get top marks for effectively using that. [/quote] "the TOOL treaty was the reason for cancellation" and "it didn't play a part" are not mutually exclusive Silentkiller. You'll find nobody claiming either of those is true from Nemesis. Already responded to your point about the government member elsewhere, I won't bother typing it up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amossio Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1274283542' post='2303384'] I obviously hit a nerve there. I am sorry, would you like some candy? The fact that a government member of Loss thinks that the TOOL treaty was the reason for cancellation says enough. But hey you keep on trying to pretend it didn't play a part. What did you say again? "keep saying something until the other side gives up". You get top marks for effectively using that. [/quote] If you were talking about Ben, he is not LoSS Gov, you seriously have no idea what went on or what is going or what will go on, I keep repeating myself but some still think they know everything about a cancellation with the reasons given in private, although the tool treaty did have some impact it still is doesn't cover the whole picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Amossio' date='19 May 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1274285830' post='2303423'] If you were talking about Ben, he is not LoSS Gov, you seriously have no idea what went on or what is going or what will go on, I keep repeating myself but some still think they know everything about a cancellation with the reasons given in private, although the tool treaty did have some impact it still is doesn't cover the whole picture. [/quote] Minister of Defense Deputy Co_God_Ben Although that might be a case of out dated Wiki. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 06:59 AM' timestamp='1274266723' post='2303218'] Hey atleast this dispels the theory thet "ex-hegemony" alliances are free to sign with whoever they want. That one gave me a right laugh [/quote] Umm... they are? I don't see anyone saying that TOOL isn't allowed to sign with LoSS. And that goes for everyone on the ex Hegemony side (unless bound by terms I guess). [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1274281247' post='2303346'] Sure it is doable but only if the alliance on the "karma"/"New Hegemony"/"pepsi" side doesnt mind getting some if its treaties cancelled. [/quote] So are you saying that ex Karma alliances aren't allowed to cancel treaties if they don't like the foreign affairs direction their allies are going? Cause it sure as hell looks like that's what your saying. And if that's the case then, well, you're just as bad as we are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silentkiller Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='Daikos' date='19 May 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1274286010' post='2303432'] Umm... they are? I don't see anyone saying that TOOL isn't allowed to sign with LoSS. And that goes for everyone on the ex Hegemony side (unless bound by terms I guess). So are you saying that ex Karma alliances aren't allowed to cancel treaties if they don't like the foreign affairs direction their allies are going? Cause it sure as hell looks like that's what your saying. And if that's the case then, well, you're just as bad as we are... [/quote] Good thing it's not what I am saying then huh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amossio Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 [quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1274285962' post='2303429'] Minister of Defense Deputy Co_God_Ben Although that might be a case of out dated Wiki. [/quote] Yes it is, this just goes to show people really don't know anything about the situation let alone those involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordSlade Posted May 19, 2010 Report Share Posted May 19, 2010 Ben has nothing to do with LOSS government at the moment. He's on vacation traveling. Anything referring to him as gov be it wiki, OWF, anything else is outdated. 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.