Nemesis Announcement

[silentkiller]

[quote]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]

Please tell me atlest Legion-X is your trium

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1274286138' post='2303434']
Good thing it's not what I am saying then huh.
[/quote]
That's what you were implying with the sarcastic eye roll while implying that those that fought in the Karma coalition are now the same as those known as the Hegemony at that time. Hence the Pepsi/Coke same taste different name relation. Go ahead and wiggle away from your implication though. It's cool.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' date='19 May 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1274286383' post='2303441']
That's what you were implying with the sarcastic eye roll while implying that those that fought in the Karma coalition are now the same as those known as the Hegemony at that time[/quote]

Nope try again, The rolls eye was at the "doable" comment.

[quote] Hence the Pepsi/Coke same taste different name relation. Go ahead and wiggle away from your implication though. It's cool.
[/quote]

Again, please give it another go. Pepsi was used as the many names of the Karam coaltion. I just used all of the known names of the coalition at the time. Nothing was implied in the post. Although you can try and tell me what I posted. It's cool.

[legion-x]

yes i am trium

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 10:30 AM' timestamp='1274286607' post='2303447']
Nope try again, The rolls eye was at the "doable" comment.



Again, please give it another go. Pepsi was used as the many names of the Karam coaltion. I just used all of the known names of the coalition at the time. Nothing was implied in the post. Although you can try and tell me what I posted. It's cool.
[/quote]
You're right. Everyone who read your post and came to the same conclusion as I did are all wrong and you had a complex reasoning and method to your smiley placement and references. My bad.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' date='19 May 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1274286799' post='2303453']
You're right. Everyone who read your post and came to the same conclusion as I did are all wrong and you had a complex reasoning and method to your smiley placement and references. My bad.
[/quote]

I had the nerve to think that two people did not mean everyone. My bad.

Edited May 19, 2010 by silentkiller

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='19 May 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1274286862' post='2303454']
I had the nerve to think that two people did not mean everyone. My bad.
[/quote]
Nope. Not worth my time anymore. You win.

[Salmia]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='19 May 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1274246815' post='2303040']
I'm glad to see that I am still on a plane of intelligence still far beyond the reach of the average reader.


Your summary display of ignorance or lack of comprehension of my point is telling. Anyone that interpreted my clear points on a clean foreign policy as a call to a two-alliance world is, frankly, beyond help. My views on the way alliances should conduct foreign affairs result in the exact opposite: A vibrant, poly-polar world where very focused groups of alliances and large numbers of unaligned alliances enjoy great freedom to exercise their will as they see fit. As a member of RON, the most powerful housetrained alliance to ever exist and get its tail whipped beside its masters over and over again, you of course know what a unipolar world looks like and results in.
More directly to each of your summaries: 1--I clearly said treaties should never be signed to please everyone, but that a change in treaties will in the best scenario result in the loss or alteration of other existing treaties. 2--Signing new treaties and canceling old treaties IS ITSELF AN EXERCISE OF AUTONOMY, but there again I and many others have already languished the utter ignorance of the average ruler as to what sovereignty or autonomy means. 3--Strategy in foreign affairs ("treatying" to use your word) involves weighing the costs and benefits of any new treaty, assuming that you can amass as many treaties with as many widely-varying alliances as you want is stupid and is not strategy at all.


You can call it a PIAT all goddamned night long but the military clause makes it an ODP, Mia has already stated flat that TOOL erroneously calls ODPs "PIATs" so it's an idiotic ploy at this point.


You're talking out of both sides of your butt: Nemesis are turds for cancelling, Nemesis is free to cancel for whatever reason.
[/quote]


[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='19 May 2010 - 04:45 AM' timestamp='1274258697' post='2303163']
This seems the most relevant thing to quote.

ITT people take one post and run with it because it fits their need for dramaz.

Nemesis doesn't hate TOOL at all, but it seems odd to be indirectly treatied to someone you are currently holding under surrender terms? I can't imagine the potential chaining should TOOL violate the terms (hypothetical, don't get your panties in a twist drama whores) and we have to redeclare on them. At the end of the day it was not even close to the sole reason.

Also it's an ODP. It matters not what pretty letters Mia wants to put on top of it. A treaty with an optional defence clause is nothing but an optional defence treaty. You can't worm out of a mutual obligation by saying you signed an ODP when the text of the treaty is very clearly that of an MADP. It is the text of the treaty that means everything, not the title. That's all mostly irrelevant to be honest, it's just something I picked up on reading through the thread.

Also ITT people respond to The AUT's clueless ranting about the innerworkings of an alliance he's never been a member of when the wise course of action, as it always is with The AUT, would be to forget the ignorance and try not let the fact that people that stupid really do exist ruin your day.
[/quote]


I have been called out twice as if I am purposefully deceiving people. Fine that Nemesis views ODPs different than TOOL but to claim that I am trying to hide a treaty under false lettering is a lie. Different alliances view different levels of treaties differently. For some alliances, ODPs is the strongest they go. This is not the case with TOOL. We call them PIATs because they [i]are[/i] PIATs to us. You can call them whatever you like in your perception, that is fine but don't accuse me of trying to paint something that it is not.

It is a PIAT and it is the lowest level treaty TOOL does. We only do PIATs which happen to include what is viewed as an ODP to others but it is not that way to TOOL. It is not erroneous to label it such when it is what TOOL views it as, many alliances have military aid clauses within their PIATs. Maybe that is not what Nemesis does but it is what TOOL does and that does not mean our label is wrong when that is our treatying structure.

You can argue whatever points you want but please don't make it out as if I am trying to make this something other than what it is. It is a PIAT to us, to you it is whatever the heck you want to label it.

[Poyplemonkeys]

I've not accused you of hiding anything, the only reason you were mentioned by name instead of just saying TOOL is because it was you posting. We view treaties differently, that much is clear, and whether you see it as a PIAT or not, you cannot deny it contains an optional defence clause which was my point

[Taget]

[quote name='Salmia' date='18 May 2010 - 08:55 PM' timestamp='1274230527' post='2302628']
Last time I checked an ODP is optional defense and people don't enter wars via a PIAT over their higher treaty partners. So either TOOL is very persuasive and more evil than I thought or LoSS can't be trusted with a PIAT.
[/quote]

You're both persuasive and evil. But that's why I love you.

As for the treaty drop. Both LoSS and Nemesis have good friends who will take care of them. They'll both be fine.

[Bob]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='19 May 2010 - 05:10 AM' timestamp='1274260213' post='2303177']
Except that the treaty is labeled as a PIAT, although it does have a few elements that make it seem almost like an ODP.
[/quote]
PIAT with an optional defense clause.

The point is the same.

Regardless what you want to label it as, it has an optional defense clause.

God, the propaganda is out in force here. Cheers to the "omg $%&@ Nemesis!!" crowd for taking a nongovernment member of LoSS's view of what happened as the entire story. Kudos to you for assuming that Nemesis is terrible for their actions, and LoSS (who most people here would berate 90% of the time) is completely innocent. I love them both, and I can say for sure that the blame is mutual, not just upon one. I will not elaborate further, as both alliances deserve better then to have their business aired in public. As stated before, enjoy your bickering.

Its always great to see my old friends from Nemesis who always come out to support their old alliance, because that's just the way Nemesis is. Once you are in, you are a part of the community, for good unless you choose to isolate yourself. I'm proud :>

Edited May 19, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='19 May 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1274279917' post='2303330']
well to be fair, this was done under NPO's hegemony as well.
[/quote]
Fair enough Doch, however, do you think thats a good enough reason? wasnt NPO grilled and blasted for several reasons including this? If NPO does it, its bad, otherwise its "NPO did it, so we're doing it, tho its not bad". I'm not suggesting that you're saying this, I feel you're making an objective and a right observation. However sometimes, "NPO did it" appears to be a counter argument. When all is said and done, It comes down to a simple change of Hegemonic power whilst the only other change seems to have been no viceroys which seems to have been partly compensated by a much higher amount of reps, reps under no protection, no transfer of tech from tech-farm range nations etc.

Sometimes, opinions have been raised that since Karma, ex-hegemonic alliances did nothing to change or bridge the gaps or bury the hatchets. I'd say here is one of those events that highlights the issues and obstacles being deliberately raised to keep the alliances isolated and then later be blamed for not reaching out. I do not say this for all the alliances, tho alot remains to be seen.

For the record, we actually once fought TOOL, yes, war and since then, TOOL has been one of the most wonderful allies one can hope for, seems like LoSS and TOOL formed a comradeship in a similar manner as IRON and TOOL once did. I really congratulate LoSS and from my experience with TOOL I can tell you..had Nemesis gotten into trouble for not-good-enough or flimsy reasons i.e. had Nemesis been agressed, [b]TOOL in all certainty, would have gone in via LoSS to defend Nemesis.[/b]

Edited May 19, 2010 by shahenshah

[Rafael Nadal]

I don't see what all the commotion is about, really. Well wishes to all involved.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='19 May 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1274297961' post='2303585']
Fair enough Doch, however, do you think thats a good enough reason? wasnt NPO grilled and blasted for several reasons including this? If NPO does it, its bad, otherwise its "NPO did it, so we're doing it, tho its not bad". I'm not suggesting that you're saying this, I feel you're making an objective and a right observation. However sometimes, "NPO did it" appears to be a counter argument. When all is said and done, It comes down to a simple change of Hegemonic power whilst the only other change seems to have been no viceroys which seems to have been partly compensated by a much higher amount of reps, reps under no protection, no transfer of tech from tech-farm range nations etc.

Sometimes, opinions have been raised that since Karma, ex-hegemonic alliances did nothing to change or bridge the gaps or bury the hatchets. I'd say here is one of those events that highlights the issues and obstacles being deliberately raised to keep the alliances isolated and then later be blamed for not reaching out. I do not say this for all the alliances, tho alot remains to be seen.

For the record, we actually once fought TOOL, yes, war and since then, TOOL has been one of the most wonderful allies one can hope for, seems like LoSS and TOOL formed a comradeship in a similar manner as IRON and TOOL once did. I really congratulate LoSS and from my experience with TOOL I can tell you..had Nemesis gotten into trouble for not-good-enough or flimsy reasons i.e. had Nemesis been agressed, [b]TOOL in all certainty, would have gone in via LoSS to defend Nemesis.[/b]
[/quote]

oh i agree that the whole "NPO did it or did worse" is just a pathetic attempt to excuse actions that are still inexcusable. not really much has changed since Karma except who is on the receiving end. anyways, i am done with this thread. Good luck to LoSS, Nemesis, and TOOL.

[Lord Fingolfin]

The funny thing is, STA signed nearly the exact same PIAT with TOOL just a few months ago and I didn't see MK cancelling on STA.
Nemesis is clearly more politically astute than Archon

Edited May 19, 2010 by Lord Fingolfin

[Amossio]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 May 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1274302821' post='2303676']
The funny thing is, STA signed nearly the exact same PIAT with TOOL just a few months ago and I didn't see MK cancelling on STA.
Nemesis is clearly more politically astute than Archon
[/quote]


Reasons were given in private, I don't know why people state their opinion which they are clueless about.
Neither LoSS or Nemesis cares for such misinformed opinions by some, I bet next announcement by LoSS those that are somewhat condemning nemesis for our cancellation with an alliance we are still close to will be resuming to LoSS bashing again ....

[wickedj]

Dear Nemesis,
Thanks proving some mild relief from the "HURRRR GRAMLINS!" threads

Love,
WJ

P.S. T-O-P still sucks
Also, Hi Mia

Edited May 19, 2010 by wickedj

[Timeline]

[quote name='Salmia' date='19 May 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1274288675' post='2303477']
I have been called out twice as if I am purposefully deceiving people. Fine that Nemesis views ODPs different than TOOL but to claim that I am trying to hide a treaty under false lettering is a lie. Different alliances view different levels of treaties differently. For some alliances, ODPs is the strongest they go. This is not the case with TOOL. We call them PIATs because they [i]are[/i] PIATs to us. You can call them whatever you like in your perception, that is fine but don't accuse me of trying to paint something that it is not.

It is a PIAT and it is the lowest level treaty TOOL does. We only do PIATs which happen to include what is viewed as an ODP to others but it is not that way to TOOL. It is not erroneous to label it such when it is what TOOL views it as, many alliances have military aid clauses within their PIATs. Maybe that is not what Nemesis does but it is what TOOL does and that does not mean our label is wrong when that is our treatying structure.

You can argue whatever points you want but please don't make it out as if I am trying to make this something other than what it is. It is a PIAT to us, to you it is whatever the heck you want to label it.
[/quote]

Mia, now i am not sure if you lied to me, or if you are lying to everyone here ?

[12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL
[12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> Key word is optional
[12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> And since when does anyone enter a war via an ODP without being mocked on OWF?

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Amossio' date='19 May 2010 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1274303818' post='2303696']
Reasons were given in private, I don't know why people state their opinion which they are clueless about.
Neither LoSS or Nemesis cares for such misinformed opinions by some, I bet next announcement by LoSS those that are somewhat condemning nemesis for our cancellation with an alliance we are still close to will be resuming to LoSS bashing again ....
[/quote]

I hate to break it to you mate, but you've had multiple triumvirs of your alliance in here saying that the impetus for the treaty review was the TOOL-LoSS treaty and that it played a major role in the cancellation, in addition to lack of communication. You can't really waive people off with "psh, you don't know what you're talking about" when your highest levels of gov have actually come in the public thread, explicitly laid out what their reasoning was, and in turn people have come out and criticized Nemesis' reasoning

[Amossio]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 May 2010 - 11:04 PM' timestamp='1274306667' post='2303752']
I hate to break it to you mate, but you've had multiple triumvirs of your alliance in here saying that the impetus for the treaty review was the TOOL-LoSS treaty and that it played a major role in the cancellation, in addition to lack of communication. You can't really waive people off with "psh, you don't know what you're talking about" when your highest levels of gov have actually come in the public thread, explicitly laid out what their reasoning was, and in turn people have come out and criticized Nemesis' reasoning
[/quote]

I was in the highest level of gov before quitting LoSS when this treaty came through, I know what I'm talking about you don't. Yes tool treaty has stressed the relationship, nevertheless no matter how much you want know everything you don't know everything and both you and others certainly don't know Nemesis reasoning. The reasons were given in private and it will stay private.

[quote name='Desert Ratz' date='19 May 2010 - 07:25 AM' timestamp='1274250320' post='2303093']
Now at this point the arguing is getting ridiculous. Everyone is going in circles and it is going nowhere. Nemesis had their reasons, we had ours. We are still close however all this bickering on the OWF isnt helping. Much respect, much love, we are moving on.
[/quote]

LoSS and Nemesis are moving on and remain friends, thus as Desert Ratz, LoSS Triv suggests, move on.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Amossio

[JCFalkenberg]

[quote name='Amossio' date='19 May 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1274307230' post='2303763']
I was in the highest level of gov before quitting LoSS when this treaty came through, I know what I'm talking about you don't. Yes tool treaty has stressed the relationship, nevertheless you don't know everything and you don't know Nemesis reasoning. The reasons were given in private and it will stay private.



LoSS and Nemesis are moving on and remain friends, thus as Desert Ratz, LoSS Triv suggests, move on.
[/quote]

but then people can't feel all with their all up in business that ain't theirs, and that's boring

[Salmia]

[quote name='Timeline' date='19 May 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1274306560' post='2303750']
Mia, now i am not sure if you lied to me, or if you are lying to everyone here ?

[12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL
[12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> Key word is optional
[12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> And since when does anyone enter a war via an ODP without being mocked on OWF?
[/quote]

Right so now you want to play the word twisting log dumping game? Guess what? I am not going to play with you. You can twist words however you want, that is your priority. I am not going to play it.

I did not lie and you can claim whatever you want. You take logs out of their context, congratulations for you. Since the people I was talking to kept insisting it was an ODP, I explained it in words that people would understand. It is a PIAT to TOOL and that is as simple as it. I kept being asked about the ODP so I called it the ODP in the context of that log because that is what you perceived it as.

You would never see TOOL calling the treaty an ODP unless the person we're talking to clearly DEFINES it as that which is what Nemesis kept insisting on it. That is what you saw it as, so in order to make things easier, I just called it an ODP because I did not feel like getting hung up in a verbal word fight with you. Just like it is happening here. I am out of this thread but if you want to continue the slander game, go ahead but anyone who knows me knows I am a straight shooter. It is an ODP to Nemesis, but a PIAT to TOOL. Simple matter of perception but doesn't make either one wrong.

But as far as I'm concerned or TOOL is concerned, it is a PIAT. Nice try, using logs and trying to play the FA twisting game. You can go that route if you want to but I refuse to play ball.

[daggarz]

So why put an ODP clause in there? Rectifty that little gem and let Nemesis and LoSS repair their relationship.

Why sign a treaty at all if you put no stock in it.

[Timeline]

[quote name='Salmia' date='19 May 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1274307980' post='2303778']
Right so now you want to play the word twisting log dumping game? Guess what? I am not going to play with you. You can twist words however you want, that is your priority. I am not going to play it.

I did not lie and you can claim whatever you want. You take logs out of their context, congratulations for you. Since the people I was talking to kept insisting it was an ODP, I explained it in words that people would understand. [b]It is a PIAT to TOOL and that is as simple as it[/b]. I kept being asked about the ODP so [b]I called it the ODP in the context of that log because that is what you perceived it as. [/b]

[b]You would never see TOOL calling the treaty an ODP unless the person we're talking to clearly DEFINES it as that which is what Nemesis kept insisting on it[/b]. That is what you saw it as, so in order to make things easier, I just called it an ODP because I did not feel like getting hung up in a verbal word fight with you. Just like it is happening here. I am out of this thread but if you want to continue the slander game, go ahead but anyone who knows me knows I am a straight shooter. [b]It is an ODP to Nemesis, but a PIAT to TOOL.[/b] Simple matter of perception but doesn't make either one wrong.

[b]But as far as I'm concerned or TOOL is concerned, it is a PIAT.[/b] [b]Nice try, using logs and trying to play the FA twisting game. You can go that route if you want to but I refuse to play ball.[/b]
[/quote]

i made a few things bold, as to clear things up...[b]It is a PIAT to TOOL and that is as simple as it[/b][12:45] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL

[b]I called it the ODP in the context of that log because that is what you perceived it as. [/b] <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL (you told me that a PIAT = ODP to TOOL, thats telling me to TOOL you have PIAT's but they are classed as ODP by TOOL, that has nothing to do with what i perceived

[b]You would never see TOOL calling the treaty an ODP unless the person we're talking to clearly DEFINES it as that which is what Nemesis kept insisting on it[/b] No you call them PIAT (<Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL)

[b]It is an ODP to Nemesis, but a PIAT to TOOL.[/b] well in Nemesis we have PIAT's and ODP, we don't have PIAT's that are classed as ODP? a PIAT is a PIAT to Nemesis but <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL not the same for tool

[b]But as far as I'm concerned or TOOL is concerned, it is a PIAT.[/b] SO <Mia[TOOL|Gov]> PIAT = ODP to TOOL (you signed a ODP with LoSS why not just say so)

[b]Nice try, using logs and trying to play the FA twisting game. You can go that route if you want to but I refuse to play ball.[/b] I am not playing any game, i am just pointing out it seems that TOOL FA do not really know what a PIAT or a ODP really are ?, your the one who claimed that a PIAT is just a ODP for tool no one else ? how is that twisting your words >?

Edited May 19, 2010 by Timeline

[Choader]

[quote name='Salmia' date='19 May 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1274307980' post='2303778']
Right so now you want to play the word twisting log dumping game? Guess what? I am not going to play with you. You can twist words however you want, that is your priority. I am not going to play it.

I did not lie and you can claim whatever you want. You take logs out of their context, congratulations for you. Since the people I was talking to kept insisting it was an ODP, I explained it in words that people would understand. It is a PIAT to TOOL and that is as simple as it. I kept being asked about the ODP so I called it the ODP in the context of that log because that is what you perceived it as.

You would never see TOOL calling the treaty an ODP unless the person we're talking to clearly DEFINES it as that which is what Nemesis kept insisting on it. That is what you saw it as, so in order to make things easier, I just called it an ODP because I did not feel like getting hung up in a verbal word fight with you. Just like it is happening here. I am out of this thread but if you want to continue the slander game, go ahead but anyone who knows me knows I am a straight shooter. It is an ODP to Nemesis, but a PIAT to TOOL. Simple matter of perception but doesn't make either one wrong.

But as far as I'm concerned or TOOL is concerned, it is a PIAT. Nice try, using logs and trying to play the FA twisting game. You can go that route if you want to but I refuse to play ball.
[/quote]
You can call a duck a monkey but it still quacks. Whatever arbitrary name you assign to a treaty with a defense clause doesn't have to be accepted at face value by anyone else.