United Purple Nations - Regnum Invictorum Announcement

[Eden Taylor]

Glad you two can agree that Nixon is an idiot. He is.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 June 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1275732335' post='2324401']
Regardless I think UPN have bigger problem with the apparent coup on Peggy_Sue
[/quote]

What coup?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Kalasin' date='05 June 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1275732922' post='2324404']
What coup?
[/quote]

Thank Admin you're there for UPN.

[President S O]

No one should get excited about a "coup" until it has been confirmed.

[17:29] <Greene345> just letting you all know that UPN just lost their leader.
[17:29] <Greene345> she [b]resigned[/b].

And remember, always check your sources. After all, this one went on to commit [OOC: IRC Terrorism]

EDIT: Who knows.

Edited June 5, 2010 by President S O

[Thrash]

[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 06:11 AM' timestamp='1275732657' post='2324402']
Presumably Invicta wasn't overjoyed with this.
[/quote]

Gee, ya think?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1275721774' post='2324313']
UPN had multiple treaty commitments. When TOP et al attacked the ODN, they were obligated to defend us, but that would mean that had to attack some of their allies direct treaty partners. UPN couldn't meet all of its commitments, so it choose neutrality. It was a casualty of circumstance.
[/quote]
Choosing neutrality violated the [i]You have to forget about what other people say, when you're supposed to die, or when you're supposed to be loving. You have to forget about all these things.[/i] clause of Purple Haze.

It wasn't a normal treaty.

Then again, you're from the ODN. I wouldn't expect you to actually read treaty texts.

[quote name='Kalasin' date='05 June 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1275724054' post='2324337']
We're here for you, UPN.
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54850

[Learz]

[quote name='KainIIIC' date='05 June 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1275715505' post='2324273']
Surely this is just a foreshadowing to the treaty we all know is coming: iFOK and Invicta!
[/quote]
INTERNAL MEMO (EYES ONLY): Please find the spy and have him executed. That is all.

[quote name='ProdigyNL' date='05 June 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1275721920' post='2324315']
Wow, as an ex UPNer im sad to see this.
There used to be such a good relationship between UPN and Invicta, closer then man and wife, closer then bloodbrothers and closer then 2 objects glued together.

Its a sad day to see the relationship being on this low of a level.
[/quote]
It is a sad day. However, alliances begin to drift apart. Although the friendship is still there, our paths have diverged some over the years.

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 June 2010 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1275730106' post='2324394']
Maybe you two can sign an optional MADP.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I lol'ed. No offense intended

[Goose]

[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1275721774' post='2324313']
UPN had multiple treaty commitments. When TOP et al attacked the ODN, they were obligated to defend us, but that would mean that had to attack some of their allies direct treaty partners. UPN couldn't meet all of its commitments, so it choose neutrality. It was a casualty of circumstance.
[/quote]Being in a bloc means you don't have conflicting treaties. You have the bloc, and you should always be on the side of that bloc.

[potato]

Surprised to see Peggy_Sue's name on this as I just received this in my inbox. Not sure why [b]I[/b] got it but thought I'd share with the class...

[quote]Hello everyone;

I come to you with grave news, our leader, Peggy_Sue, has resigned as our leader of United Purple Nations.

A few members, led, it appears, by GreatWhiteHurricane, began working weeks ago to "get rid" of her.

It is with the deepest of regrets that I was not in time to eradicate these treasonous members.

I will admit that I used very unethical means in which to acquire the knowledge that I had amassed.

Your friend, or enemy, as you choose;

Greene345 of Kouston[/quote]

[mythicknight]

Tagging manually.

This is just too funny.

[Lusitan]

[quote name='potato' date='05 June 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1275748460' post='2324525']
Surprised to see Peggy_Sue's name on this as I just received this in my inbox. Not sure why [b]I[/b] got it but thought I'd share with the class...
[/quote]

I believe everyone at UPN forums got it.

[darkfox]

[quote name='Goose' date='05 June 2010 - 07:19 AM' timestamp='1275747528' post='2324522']
Being in a bloc means you don't have conflicting treaties. You have the bloc, and you should always be on the side of that bloc.
[/quote]

I agree. However on treaty levels CDT was a non chaining MDoAP at the time. This is probably why many CDT alliances are downgrading to non chaining treaties that are outside of the bloc.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='darkfox' date='05 June 2010 - 02:46 AM' timestamp='1275720384' post='2324295']
I could have sworn several CDT alliances came in to defend Invicta. I am sure you are correct. These links are just clever lies placed in the past to make you seem incorrect.

WP DoW on iFok
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80458

USN DoW on iFOK and FCO
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80536

Edit: Oops I said several didn't I? Nearly forgot Menotah

Menotah DoW on Stickmen
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80877
[/quote]

NVM CJ got it
[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1275721774' post='2324313']
UPN had multiple treaty commitments. When TOP et al attacked the ODN, they were obligated to defend us, but that would mean that had to attack some of their allies direct treaty partners. UPN couldn't meet all of its commitments, so it choose neutrality. It was a casualty of circumstance.
[/quote]


[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 05:42 AM' timestamp='1275730908' post='2324399']
No, I think you can try again. I believe the "BS excuse" was the fact that the ODN was in a war before invicta. Thus, UPN were required to defend us again their allies allies in IRON and TOP. Unless of course somehow the Invicta MADP was activated before invicta went to war....

What a come back, where do you come up with these?
[/quote]
Actually if you really want to E LAWYER !@#$ here lets break it down on how UPN could have easily honored its treaty obligations to Invicta. FAN who had no treaty attacked IRON Valhalla defends IRON from unwarented agression. Now we can spend the rest of this thread back and forth on paperless treaties but for the sake of brevity FAN has no treaties they have friends. (Much Love FAN) With that entry it could very well be seen as a seperate war or at the minimum a totally different front. If i read ODNs treaties correctly no one on this front was engaged with any of ODNs allies at all. I dont believe I see a single ally of ODN on our peace terms. So UPN could have easily entered the war and avoided all conflicting treaties. IF YOU SIGN A MADP YOU ROLL WITH THAT PARTNER. So really its pretty simple UPN hung a bunch of people including USN out to dry and they really didnt have to and would have still been honoring their treaties.

[quote name='Goose' date='05 June 2010 - 10:19 AM' timestamp='1275747528' post='2324522']
Being in a bloc means you don't have conflicting treaties. You have the bloc, and you should always be on the side of that bloc.
[/quote]
they turkeybowl speaks great truths here


Regardless Invicta is better off with out having to wonder what criteria must be met to honor a treaty with them.

o/ Invicta best move ever from yall

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1275721774' post='2324313']
UPN had multiple treaty commitments. When TOP et al attacked the ODN, they were obligated to defend us, but that would mean that had to attack some of their allies direct treaty partners. UPN couldn't meet all of its commitments, so it choose neutrality. It was a casualty of circumstance.
[/quote]

Numerous alliances had conflicting treaties during that war. They chose a side. UPN chose to buy popcorn and sit in the bleachers. Don't paint it as anything even remotely noble. Living on technicalities will only get you through so much on Planet Bob. Even your own government finally realized this.

[Duke Nukem]

To all my friends and family in the CN community. Peggy Sue is not resigning and you shouldn't worry. Greene has now left UPN. Thank you for your time.

[potato]

[quote name='We Are Not Alone' date='05 June 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1275753252' post='2324577']
To all my friends and family in the CN community. Peggy Sue is not resigning and you shouldn't worry. Greene has now left UPN. Thank you for your time.
[/quote]

What I am wondering about is the "very unethical means".

[Jorost]

Look, I know some of you don't like me or my alliance. But whatever you think of us, please believe me when I say that this has not been an easy time. We were closer to UPN than to just about any other alliance. Someone upthread described it in terms of a marriage, and I think that's a pretty accurate assessment. But unfortunately not all marriages last. We wish they would, but they don't. Sometimes people grow apart, and, in CN terms, that is what has happened between UPN and Invicta.

We are not angry, we are not bitter. I really regret the name-calling and posturing on the part of friends and supporters on both sides. But I guess that's the way it is with a divorce -- each party's friends try to vilify the other. That's a shame, because I don't believe that either of us involved feels that way towards the other. I know I don't. Choices were made, not all of them good, by BOTH of us that have led us to where we are now. No one is the villain in this. It's a divorce, yes, but it's an amicable one.

I mean it when I say that I wish UPN only good things.

Finally, just to clarify, many CDT alliances did indeed come to our defense in the last war. Our separation from CDT had nothing to do with any sense that we had not been supported. Quite the contrary. The issue was simply that we had different foreign policy priorities, and we did not feel that in light of those differences we could honor our commitment to the bloc in the manner in which we would wish. That wasn't fair to them, so we withdrew.

Edited June 5, 2010 by Jorost

[James Saams]

[quote name='Banksy' date='05 June 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1275721774' post='2324313']
UPN had multiple treaty commitments. When TOP et al attacked the ODN, they were obligated to defend us, but that would mean that had to attack some of their allies direct treaty partners. UPN couldn't meet all of its commitments, so it choose neutrality. It was a casualty of circumstance.
[/quote]
The best excuse you could find? Honestly? Treaty commitments on both sides of a conflict doesn't mean you have sit and do nothing like an asshat. Many alliances had allies on both sides, Valhalla included, so stop trying to justify treaties on both sides excusing a complete lack of respect to people who would have previously come in to bail you out of anything.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='potato' date='05 June 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1275753463' post='2324579']
What I am wondering about is the "very unethical means".
[/quote]

Pretty straight forward...either he joined the conspiracy at some point to expose it, or used admin powers of some kind to get at information. Or he just made the whole thing up for reasons known only to him.

I'm left however with this burning question: do I care?

[Kae Lee]

[quote name='Alterego' date='05 June 2010 - 04:10 AM' timestamp='1275728982' post='2324381']
Real friends dont position themselves in the middle of the treaty web to get out of a fight they will probably lose. UPN were only friends when convenient. A treaty with UPN should always be considered optional especially if you are on the smaller side of the war no matter how big a friend they claim to be. So if they treat MADPs as optional why not make them optional. They seem to be slithering over to the other side now anyway. o/ Invicta, an ally who actually defends their friends.
[/quote]
There have certainly been a few waves between Alchemy and Invicta, but it was my first home and I am very glad to see this. Good for you Invicta, you deserve better.

[Becks For Dinner]

Good to see the treaty text reflect the actual nature of the relationship. To be honest had a MADP partner of mine declared neutrality because a lower level treaty partner of theirs was attacked, I would have outright cancelled.

[potato]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='05 June 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1275755563' post='2324601']
Pretty straight forward...either he joined the conspiracy at some point to expose it, or used admin powers of some kind to get at information. Or he just made the whole thing up for reasons known only to him.

I'm left however with this burning question: do I care?
[/quote]

Saying things like that are a great way to show you don't care, Hal. Good job. I'm just curious and wanted an explanation as to what Greene did. UPN can answer me if they wish to.

[Dexomega]

[quote name='We Are Not Alone' date='05 June 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1275753252' post='2324577']
To all my friends and family in the CN community. Peggy Sue is not resigning and you shouldn't worry. Greene has now left UPN. Thank you for your time.
[/quote]
Coup fail?

Good luck on future endeavors Invicta. USN will be glad to continue spamming your IRC as well.

o/ UPN
o/ Invicta
o/ Purple

Edited June 5, 2010 by Dexomega

[Un4Gvn1]

Jorost is correct about the amicable divorce. I'm not going to talk any less to Jorost just because we have an ODP instead of an MDoAP.

UPN's FA philosophy in the past is probably best compared to a situation where an alliance allies with their friends ... with people they enjoy spending time with ... rather than basing treaties on treaty web divisions. Did this cause the web to become even more tangled? Certainly.
Did this lead to the neutrality the members voted for in the last war? Likely. Members were torn between two groups of friends and they simply couldn't imagine firing cruise missiles at either side of the war.

Was the neutrality decision incredibly harmful to UPN's public image? You can say that again.

What is UPN doing to clear up the treaty entanglements? We are updating treaties that had defensive chaining clauses to remove the chaining. We have began chaining with Menotah, a CDT partner, and we hope to do the same with the other CDT partners.

We reaffirm our commitment to good friends in New Polar Order and Orange Defense Network.

We are communicating with other treaty partners to determine the best type of treaty to reflect our Foreign Affairs philosophy and our friendships.

Sometimes alliances are friends but on different Foreign Affairs paths. This is a normal part of life. Change is sometimes good and not to be frowned upon. We're vibrant folks here on Planet Bob and we're not like a bunch of little old ladies that don't want to tolerate ... nay, even THINK of change.
Change can be good.
Change can be fun.
Change can have unforeseen beneficial consequences.

[joracy]

Honestly, UPN was in an extraordinary position. Had they not defended us, they would break our treaty due to TOP not activating our nonchaining clause. Had they not defended us they would NOT have broken their treaty with Invicta, they would have instead forced them to fight with us. Upon discussions with all of their allies they came to the conclusion that it was the best option, an option that ODN supported, and agreed too, and that Invicta did as well. Invicta worked hard to ensure UPN was capable of declaring neutrality, and we came to the conclusion it was the best move for all of us. What happened between us is our business.

I have no reservations about UPN what so ever, and I trust them fully to come to our defense if we asked them.

Regardless, more on topic I understand the need to downgrade treaties when your foreign affairs no longer mesh. It is a neccesary move at times, and I wish my ally the best of luck in the future. We're there for you if you need us