Jump to content

Nemesis Announcement


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='daggarz' date='19 May 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1274309840' post='2303804']
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.
[/quote]

daggarz, with all the love i can muster, are you seriously stuck on something that is completely optional? now if LoSS had signed a mandatory defensive clause, i could see all the issues with that. but this is optional and who knows if it will ever actually go anywhere. if it does, then i am sure LoSS will discuss that with ya'll. to throw away a long relationship (even symbolically) for something like this is just ridiculous.

honestly, you want to repair the relationship with LoSS by running their FA for them. how sweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='19 May 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1274319494' post='2304007']
daggarz, with all the love i can muster, are you seriously stuck on something that is completely optional? now if LoSS had signed a mandatory defensive clause, i could see all the issues with that. but this is optional and who knows if it will ever actually go anywhere. if it does, then i am sure LoSS will discuss that with ya'll. to throw away a long relationship (even symbolically) for something like this is just ridiculous.

honestly, you want to repair the relationship with LoSS by running their FA for them. how sweet.
[/quote]


Doch, you really don't know the entire story. Yes, the treaty was part of the reason, but it wasn't the only reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='20 May 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1274319494' post='2304007']
daggarz, with all the love i can muster, are you seriously stuck on something that is completely optional? now if LoSS had signed a mandatory defensive clause, i could see all the issues with that. but this is optional and who knows if it will ever actually go anywhere. if it does, then i am sure LoSS will discuss that with ya'll. to throw away a long relationship (even symbolically) for something like this is just ridiculous.

honestly, you want to repair the relationship with LoSS by running their FA for them. how sweet.
[/quote]


Like I said before to others who seem to think they know everything about the situation, YOU HAVE NO SCOOBIES to what happened etc.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='20 May 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1274319494' post='2304007']
daggarz, with all the love i can muster, are you seriously stuck on something that is completely optional? now if LoSS had signed a mandatory defensive clause, i could see all the issues with that. but this is optional and who knows if it will ever actually go anywhere. if it does, then i am sure LoSS will discuss that with ya'll. to throw away a long relationship (even symbolically) for something like this is just ridiculous.

honestly, you want to repair the relationship with LoSS by running their FA for them. how sweet.
[/quote]

No. I want to repair the relationship by being put ina position where I can safely do so for my alliance and its direction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Salmia' date='19 May 2010 - 01:04 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]
Maybe I came off harsh; I don't think it's so much of a case of you lying as it is a case of you being ridiculous.
[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/cndump/RP%20Threads/TOOLwords.jpg[/IMG]

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='19 May 2010 - 05:00 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 :smug:
[/quote]
The smug emote is so dramatically ironic that it's sort of sad; in the sense that I'm sad for you that you thought you were being clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see the issue here, as I remember a lot of PIAT's have ODP clauses, the TOOL-LoSS one is simply another. A lot of protectorate treaties have senate, tech and trade clauses, they aren't labelled as 'Protectorate, senate, tech and trade treaties', they are simply protectorate treaties whether they include those clauses or not. To take it further, I don't remember a huge uproar over labels when the NPO-MK MDP was announced after WotC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='rtellez06' date='19 May 2010 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1274321278' post='2304032']
Doch, you really don't know the entire story. Yes, the treaty was part of the reason, but it wasn't the only reason.
[/quote]

never stated i did. in fact in another post, i acknowledged the other guy who stated that the treaty simply pushed everything over the edge.

[quote name='Amossio' date='19 May 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1274321431' post='2304036']
Like I said before to others who seem to think they know everything about the situation, YOU HAVE NO SCOOBIES to what happened etc.....
[/quote]

see above.

[quote name='daggarz' date='19 May 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1274321701' post='2304046']
No. I want to repair the relationship by being put ina position where I can safely do so for my alliance and its direction
[/quote]

So, should this happen to Nemesis, ya'll be down with it then and expect say, IAA to only want to repair the relationship should you take the FA direction IAA feels you should take? (using IAA cuz i wub them so darn much)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doch, you keep referencing to knowing this isn't solely about the treaty, so really that last question is hard to answer. If the situation was reversed between us and IAA of course we'd understand their actions, we're not hypocritical and would be entirely capable of seeing IAA's point of view. Suffice to say the FA direction isn't the only aspect of the friendship we want to work on with LoSS. A lot of Nemesis discussed a downgrade as we felt it would be more fitting of where the relationship stood right now than an outright cancellation. However for various reasons, including the fact it would just essentially be NOIR twice, the idea was debunked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='20 May 2010 - 04:28 AM' timestamp='1274347691' post='2304793']
Doch, you keep referencing to knowing this isn't solely about the treaty, so really that last question is hard to answer. If the situation was reversed between us and IAA of course we'd understand their actions, we're not hypocritical and would be entirely capable of seeing IAA's point of view. Suffice to say the FA direction isn't the only aspect of the friendship we want to work on with LoSS. A lot of Nemesis discussed a downgrade as we felt it would be more fitting of where the relationship stood right now than an outright cancellation. However for various reasons, including the fact it would just essentially be NOIR twice, the idea was debunked.
[/quote]

sorry, i did not phrase the last question properly. i meant it to be on top of the other issues. but i can respect this viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...