Jump to content

The Something or Other Accords 2.0


Recommended Posts

[quote name='potato' date='14 June 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1276534673' post='2337287']
And yes, you do sound like a tool for saying ONE treaty is going to completely change GOD's foreign policy or that they're going to leave their bloc because of that ONE treaty.[/quote]
I didn't say those things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1276533941' post='2337273']
You are calling me a complete tool for asking a basic question about another alliance's foreign policy goals? My question was a bit of idle speculation at most (not a hostile assumption, not a joke at GOD's expense, or anything else) and I've been met with an insult and a bunch of sarcastic responses, all from an alliance whom the question was not even aimed at.

Really, there is no need for such hostility here. I guess I'll ask again: why so defensive?
[/quote]

Asking an absurd and unreasonable question (like, for example, whether a Mutual Defense Pact means a long-time and dedicated SF alliance will be leaving to join a bloc they have only one treaty with) [i]does[/i] make you a complete tool. There are questions, and then there are stupid questions. Your question was stupid.

Edited by Penkala
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' date='14 June 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1276535275' post='2337294']
(like, for example, whether a Mutual Defense Pact means a long-time and dedicated SF alliance will be leaving to join a bloc they have one treaty with)
[/quote]
It's a good job that that wasn't my question, then. You have been sucked in by the exaggerations of others, because I asked very simply and clearly whether it could be the [u]beginning[/u] of a move. All that was required was a simple answer from GOD.

Instead I get this... fiasco. At no point did I suggest that this treaty is the sole indicator that GOD is dramatically jumping sides in ONE swoop, or whatever else it is you're using as a justification to call me a tool and stupid.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1276535502' post='2337295']
It's a good job that that wasn't my question, then. You have been sucked in by the exaggerations of others, because I asked very simply and clearly whether it could be the [u]beginning[/u] of a move. All that was required was a simple answer from GOD.

Instead I get this... fiasco. At no point did I suggest that this treaty is the sole indicator that GOD is dramatically jumping sides in ONE swoop, or whatever else it is you're using as a justification to call me a tool and stupid.
[/quote]

If you want to be exact and beat around the bush, none of us called you a tool or stupid. [b]I[/b] said you [i]sounded[/i] like a tool by making such a comment. Not that you were one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='potato' date='14 June 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1276535967' post='2337302']
If you want to be exact and beat around the bush, none of us called you a tool or stupid. [b]I[/b] said you [i]sounded[/i] like a tool by making such a comment. Not that you were one...
[/quote]
You are a potato when you post.

At this point I'm not even sure what Aimee's original point was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you really expecting Xiphosis to come here and seriously say "yeah we're getting ready to ditch SF and hop on CnG's ride"?

Because honey that's just too cute for me!

Edited by Lord Gobb
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalasin' date='13 June 2010 - 03:18 AM' timestamp='1276413479' post='2336027']
But have you ever been an alliance leader at the head of a victorious coalition? I suspect it's a tad more difficult than you're trying to make out. I mean, if you're deadly enemies with someone, if you give them white peace they're just going to come after you and jump you.

[OOC] It's a bit like real life politics. It's easy for small parties to criticise whoever is in power, because ultimately they don't actually have to make the big decisions and do what's best for the country. See the environment vs industrialisation debate as an example, parties with good environmental policies are often small. In the same way, it's easy to criticise the decisions of major powers to hand out terms when you've never been in that situation yourself. [/OOC]
[/quote]

I appreciate the sentiment of this, but I think you’re overestimating the rigidity of Bob’s international system. “Deadly enemies” can be allies in the next coalition war. Certainly there are rivalries, but over a long enough period of time if coupled with good treatment those rivalries can fade. There are always examples of people treatying with people they fought against. I think the only “deadly enemies” which really tend to be permanent, or at least long lasting are those which relate to perceived betrayals. Even then, those can change if the right circumstances present themselves. Most people come into wars in defense of allies, because they don’t want their partners to burn. I don’t expect original aggressors to get off scot free (I personally think the closer to that the better the policy) but I do think it is poor form to extract reps out of every dick, joe, and harry that involves themselves in a coalition war. TOOL’s reps in this last war are a perfect example of such an “unfair” policy, where “we need to pay for damages” was cited.

I personally think the excuse that “reps are used to pay for damages” is a particularly poor argument. Your stats are only good or bad in relation to other nations and alliance. If all nations are at 2K tech and you are at 3K, you are a big and powerful nation. If you were at 5K tech and your opponents was 6K tech before a war, but now you are at 3K tech and your opponent is at 2K tech, you are better off than your opponent. Now if you use the argument that you need to extract reps to get back to 5K tech (AKA you ask for 2K tech in reps), you are increasing your relative power by 150% (5K>2K by 150%). The same result could be gained by say ordering your opponent to destroy tech. In the same example if you ordered your opponent to destroy 1K tech you would be 150% bigger than them. An addendum must be added that reps make defensive sense if the war is not world-wide, and people are teching up while other’s stats are being destroyed. That was not the case in the last war however, unless you count GPA :P

Therefore the critical difference is the time factor. The ability to kick nations out of world politics, and delay them from devoting their financial systems to their own growth for months upon months is where the true power of reps comes in. Indeed, you channel the power of another alliance’s financial system for a given period.
Commander Thrawn is exactly right, it is all about power and it is not unreasonable to expect political alliances to try and gain an advantage whenever and wherever they can. No one can fault people who are upfront about their motives, because there is no question about the way in which they will act. What I deplore though, is the doublespeak which tries to mask power grabs for compassion.
That’s why I enjoy Xiph and GOD. You guys are upfront about your motives and your goals. What you see seems to be what you get with GOD, and that is a very admirable quality from where I am sitting. Congratulations GOD on this treaty, I hope it gives you what you are looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Gobb' date='14 June 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1276536254' post='2337305']
Are you really expecting Xiphosis to come here and seriously say "yeah we're getting ready to ditch SF and hop on CnG's ride"?

Because honey that's just too cute for me!
[/quote]
I was expecting him to come and say the opposite. I certainly didn't expect my easy little question to arouse numerous sarcastic answers, deliberate misinterpretations of my words and most of all, insults. I should be more careful next time!

And yes, potato, "sound like a tool" is still insulting, but I guess it's easier for you to play the semantics game at this point. Fair enough.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='14 June 2010 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1276536173' post='2337304']
You are a potato when you post.

At this point I'm not even sure what Aimee's original point was.
[/quote]

Are you the one who's in charge of writing the "GOD MERGES WITH LOST AND STAYS IN C&G" announcement? I would like to offer my help to potato this one too.

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1276536848' post='2337312']
And yes, potato, "sound like a tool" is still insulting, but I guess it's easier for you to play the semantics game at this point. Fair enough.
[/quote]

I truely am sorry my words hurt your feelings. I am ashamed of myself for calling you out on !@#$ even Alterego would be ashamed of. I'll do my best to refrain, I promise.

Edited by potato
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='15 June 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1276536848' post='2337312']but I guess it's easier for you to play the semantics game at this point. Fair enough.[/quote]

Really? This is after trying to split the "beginning of the move from SF" vs "the move from SF" hair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='potato' date='14 June 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1276537231' post='2337318']
I truely am sorry my words hurt your feelings. I am ashamed of myself for calling you out on !@#$ even Alterego would be ashamed of. I'll do my best to refrain, I promise.
[/quote]
It would've been better if you'd called me out on, oh I don't know, something that I'd actually said?

[quote name='Voytek' date='14 June 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1276537451' post='2337321']
Really? This is after trying to split the "beginning of the move from SF" vs "the move from SF" hair.
[/quote]
Pointing out the obvious difference between me saying:
"Could this be the beginning of GOD's move away from SuperFriends and towards CnG?"

and what potato said I was saying:
"ONE treaty is going to completely change GOD's foreign policy [...] they're going to leave their bloc because of that ONE treaty"

is not splitting hairs. There are pretty big fundamental differences there.

Edited by Aimee Mann
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='LJ Scott' date='13 June 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1276470510' post='2336456']
Ascend!

Ascend!


Also generic wishing of congratulations.
[/quote]

$%&@ can't believe I forgot the Ascends.

[quote]Could this be the beginning of GOD's move away from SuperFriends and towards CnG? [/quote]

GOD offered to reinstate our MK MADP immediately following the Unjust War but it was delayed - at first by fear of Q & BLEU and later by our own falling out with one another. MK were some of our only legitimate friends in the UJP, and that was largely because Archon [and Tolk] were really close personal friends with Z and I. They're someone we'd like to be allied to for the immediate future, and it's unrelated to anything besides that.

[quote]Instead I get this... fiasco. At no point did I suggest that this treaty is the sole indicator that GOD is dramatically jumping sides in ONE swoop[/quote]

SF and C&G compose one side. Not two separate ones. Perhaps this is the source of your confusion.

Edited by Xiphosis
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='14 June 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1276543314' post='2337420']
$%&@ can't believe I forgot the Ascends.
[/quote]
Even worse is that all of us did.

Edited by flak attack
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='potato' date='14 June 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1276537231' post='2337318']
Are you the one who's in charge of writing the "GOD MERGES WITH LOST AND STAYS IN C&G" announcement? I would like to offer my help to potato this one too.
[/quote]
Sneak Preview!

It contains a bunch of terrible "GOD" and "LOST" puns.

"Looks like GOD has LOST out on running Superfriends and will now be the GODs of C&G"

I kinda hate myself for actually taking the time to write that, but knowing that other people have wasted their time reading it gives me slight consolation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='14 June 2010 - 12:48 PM' timestamp='1276544903' post='2337446']
SF and CnG are going to turn on each other and then kill each other and then NPO will kill everybody and its all Xiph's fault.
[/quote]

Who told you our secret plans?!?!
:ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is obviously something going on here and I will not stand for it, nor will I read the thread to see if my concerns have been addressed. Nothing good can come of our allies becoming allied. :((

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aimee Mann' date='14 June 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1276528515' post='2337192']
Could this be the beginning of GOD's move away from SuperFriends and towards CnG?
[/quote]


[quote name='Penkala' date='14 June 2010 - 09:58 AM' timestamp='1276534714' post='2337288']
I sure hope so. :P



We're all a little pissed that someone like you walked in and figured it out: This treaty is really just the beginning; GOD will be canceling their (dozen maybe?) treaties with SF alliances and joining CnG. RoK is next.
[/quote]


RoK had the first C&G treaty (with Vanguard and then MK) ... clearly, [b]we[/b] are moving from SF to C&G first.


DundunDUN.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mathias' date='14 June 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1276547054' post='2337479']
Flags aren't the same size.
[/quote]
Please don't mention it, my OCD will go nuts if I see the OP again [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/ohdear.png[/img]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Van Hoo III' date='14 June 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1276547666' post='2337493']
RoK had the first C&G treaty (with Vanguard and then MK) ... clearly, [b]we[/b] are moving from SF to C&G first.


DundunDUN.
[/quote]

Luckily we have this treaty now so we can help provide C&G with gerbils for your daily needs, Hoo, if that ever comes to pass ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='14 June 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1276543314' post='2337420']
GOD offered to reinstate our MK MADP immediately following the Unjust War but it was delayed - at first by fear of Q & BLEU and later by our own falling out with one another. MK were some of our only legitimate friends in the UJP, and that was largely because Archon [and Tolk] were really close personal friends with Z and I. They're someone we'd like to be allied to for the immediate future, and it's unrelated to anything besides that.[/quote]
Seems sensible enough. Thank you for your answer, it is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...