Phoenix Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 I mean absolutely no offense, but I see this as kind of a revolving-door treaty. Still, I'm happy for my former alliance and their allies, congrats to both. May this treaty outlast the last two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 21, 2010 Report Share Posted May 21, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Jens of the desert' date='21 May 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1274483474' post='2307386'] Aren't you supposed to be neutral now? [/quote] Prove to me there's no neutrality in that fine post. No sir, she's top-o-the-line. Barely used. [i]Gently[/i] used. Previous owner was a little old lady, drove it only once a week. Church and back. [quote name='Branimir' date='21 May 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1274483762' post='2307388'] Sal is Sal, our biggest fan. We make him, by that I mean we are the point, the corner point, upon which he defines himself. One could say we are the gravity point of his existence and further more, he probably would not be without us. It is a symbiosis of sorts. But we respect each other, the fact that is plain.[/quote] You were right up until that last sentence. Edited May 21, 2010 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cager Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 [quote name='Branimir' date='21 May 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1274477866' post='2307281'] Oh well, I dont know,....maybe the fact that the great war trilogy was like what now,...2.5, 3 years ago had a influence in the changing perspective. You sound like Bob there, bringing things that maybe have been very relevant,...years ago. Now its of questioning relevance and of a chuckling worth to me. So, wanna coup of tea? [/quote] I'll be the judge of what is relevant and what is not. And I do not drink tea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieMercury Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 Ave Legio! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koona Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 [quote name='Cager' date='21 May 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1274500361' post='2307668'] I'll be the judge of what is relevant and what is not. And I do not drink tea. [/quote] I feel so much better that you will judge what's relevant for the rest of us. Takes a great load of my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 Gratz NPO and Legion, o\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 [quote name='Hogosha' date='21 May 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1274462869' post='2307061'] Funny, I don't [i]feel[/i] like a number. Are you one of those people that doesn't allow their girlfriend to have friends who are guys? [/quote] Indeed. All of the female in my kingdom belong to Lord Arexes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeta Defender Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 o/ Legion o/ Pacifica Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessOfLinn Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 Congratulation to both our purple brothers in Legion and NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkAK47_002 Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 [quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='21 May 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1274482191' post='2307362'] I'm not looking to start a conflict or drawn lines or roll out the 'he haz a war reason' humor that is going around, but I would like to know if for the record, this [i]could[/i] be considered a breach of terms, discussing a treaty when I believe(?) treaties were forbidden by the terms laid out. Just a simple, yes or no would do for me. Thanks. [/quote] The NPO were supposedly allowed to sign treaties under terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 [quote name='BlkAK47002' date='22 May 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1274541703' post='2308007'] The NPO were supposedly allowed to sign treaties under terms [/quote] With the approval of the alliances they surrendered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 22, 2010 Report Share Posted May 22, 2010 [quote name='BlkAK47002' date='22 May 2010 - 11:22 AM' timestamp='1274541703' post='2308007'] The NPO were supposedly allowed to sign treaties under terms [/quote] Their surrender terms allowed them to sign treaties without binding military clauses with the permission of the alliances they surrendered to. However, each time they sought permission, they were refused it. So legally they were allowed, but de facto they were not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 Two great people getting together is such a beautiful thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='BlkAK47002' date='22 May 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1274541703' post='2308007'] The NPO were supposedly allowed to sign treaties under terms [/quote] Did NPO get to sign the Red color treaty? I recall it was refused despite all the whining about 'omg NPO is killing red' , just an example of what NPO was supposedly allowed to do under the terms. Edited May 23, 2010 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlkAK47_002 Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' date='22 May 2010 - 11:25 AM' timestamp='1274541933' post='2308015'] Their surrender terms allowed them to sign treaties without binding military clauses with the permission of the alliances they surrendered to. However, each time they sought permission, they were refused it. So legally they were allowed, but de facto they were not. [/quote] As much crap as they talk about being the new hegemony, that move pretty much shows everyone how terrified of Pacifica they really are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 [quote name='BlkAK47002' date='23 May 2010 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1274594918' post='2308879'] As much crap as they talk about being the new hegemony, that move pretty much shows everyone how terrified of Pacifica they really are. [/quote] Well, to be fair, they don't talk about being the new hegemony (they try to deny it as often as they can) and they seem to have stupidly agreed to require unanimous approval for the treaty clause in Pacifica's surrender terms. So one or two stubborn alliances were able to block all the Pacifican PIATs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toraoji Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 i can't believe this happened so quickly. oh well i guess... Congrats NPO, you got a great ally there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' date='23 May 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1274620179' post='2309016'] Well, to be fair, they don't talk about being the new hegemony (they try to deny it as often as they can) and they seem to have stupidly agreed to require unanimous approval for the treaty clause in Pacifica's surrender terms. So one or two stubborn alliances were able to block all the Pacifican PIATs. [/quote] The Instrument of Surrender was very poorly written and outdated, this we can both agree on. No offense to whoever authored it of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 Ave Legio! Hail Pacifica! ....times change....CN changes....adapt or die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Muscarella Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Haflinger' date='23 May 2010 - 06:09 AM' timestamp='1274620179' post='2309016'] Well, to be fair, they don't talk about being the new hegemony (they try to deny it as often as they can) and they seem to have stupidly agreed to require unanimous approval for the treaty clause in Pacifica's surrender terms. So one or two stubborn alliances were able to block all the Pacifican PIATs. [/quote] The votes on the treaties were far from one-sided iirc, with more than a few alliances disagreeing most of the time. I remember this because they had brought Red Dawn to the attention of whoever votes for everything, and I voted that they should get it. Apparently the majority felt that the possibility for hidden treaties, or at the very least paperless friendships, were better than NPO signing tangible treaties... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 Were they really concerned about hidden treaties? That would be so unlike Pacifica as to be, well, really not worth talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.Hubb Posted May 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='25 May 2010 - 05:09 AM' timestamp='1274778557' post='2311141'] Apparently the majority felt that the possibility for hidden treaties, or at the very least paperless friendships, were better than NPO signing tangible treaties... [/quote] No offense meant here because I'm not directing it at you, but what would be the point of a "hidden treaty?" If you were funneling aid, eventually someone would see it. If the NPO found itself engaged in war again, that hidden treaty would become not-so-hidden, I would think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnar Griffin Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='goldielax25' date='21 May 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1274456229' post='2306969'] I hear it's beautiful in Stockholm this time of year. Congrats on the treaty. [/quote] This is why Joe the Plumber yelling at the game isn't allowed to be the manager for Liverpool. Armchair quarterbacks FTL. Congratulations are in order, friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandrivia_2 Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 Surprised, no. This isn't too far fetched a move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkEra97 Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 [quote name='Shoofly' date='24 May 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1274753180' post='2310790'] Ave Legio! Hail Pacifica! ....times change....CN changes....adapt or die. [/quote] And by change you mean go back to exactly where it was before? 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.