The Something or Other Accords 2.0

[Voytek]

[quote name='pezstar' date='13 June 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1276412703' post='2336018']
Yeah, same for STA. We're pretty content to sit in our corner with our pals and not dominate the Cyberverse.
[/quote]

What a strange thing to get competitive about.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Jgoods45' date='13 June 2010 - 12:05 AM' timestamp='1276405503' post='2335904']
Athens adds one to every treaty we sign and we expect it to be followed to the letter. The only treaty which does not contain a civility clause is the Complaints and Grievances Union.These articles have yet to be violated in anyway. :)EDIT AGAIN.I see civility articles added to almost every treaty that is announced.
[/quote]

C&G is in no way civilized. We are barbarians, remember?


[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='13 June 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1276408317' post='2335959']
I see harsh terms as unfair, not fair ones. As I said, I'd personally give white peace to everyone to avoid alliances fostering resentment towards me and that's how I'd like to be treated.Thanks for the laugh. Fighting it out for a year is not a reasonable option because few in your alliance will want to stay. So then your alliance dies anyway.[/quote]

Even if they try to kill you for no reason and you somehow manage to win?

Edited June 13, 2010 by Londo Mollari

[Tequila Mockingbird]

well this is p cool, go us!

[Banksy]

[quote name='Seth Muscarella' date='13 June 2010 - 08:45 PM' timestamp='1276415098' post='2336030']
You ALWAYS have a choice. Sure, Echelon entered under treaty obligations, sure they did that in defense of their allies. But the cold hard truth of the matter is that "treaty obligations" in this case means declaring war on an alliance, sending all of your members to attack said alliance, and launching full nuclear attacks against that same alliance. [/quote]
You might technically have the choice not to enter, but I think it's accepted that you fight a war when your treaty partner is attacked. The way I see it, when you attack an alliance (directly), you expect their treaty partners to back them up, so you are effectively DoWing them too. It's not the alliance's choice to uphold their treaty, it's the choice of the original attacker to accept the consequences of their actions (i.e. counter attacks).

I can't say I cared for Echelon's terms tbqh.

Inb4 (and after) lolptional comment.

EDIT: Wait, how the hell did we get onto echelon?

Edited June 13, 2010 by Banksy

[Eric Cantona]

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1276426173' post='2336071']
EDIT: Wait, how the hell did we get onto echelon?
[/quote]

Good question. I'm going to advise everyone to stick to the topic.

[commander thrawn]

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 11:49 AM' timestamp='1276426173' post='2336071']
You might technically have the choice not to enter, but I think it's accepted that you fight a war when your treaty partner is attacked. The way I see it, when you attack an alliance (directly), you expect their treaty partners to back them up, so you are effectively DoWing them too.
[/quote]


No you do have a choice, you chose to secure treaties. There are ways to be neutral, or safeguard against being involved in war. But some motivation of power (even if it is just sitting in your corner) made you sign treaties. Voluntary treaties should not be an excuse to whine. And yes, if an alliance holds a treaty and you expect them to uphold it then you are declaring on multiple alliances for all intents and purposes. Which means you shouldn't whine when you get attacked.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

I dont get it, instead of saying "Nice Grouping" folks are doing whatever here?

Oh and if the only thing you lot have against GOD is Xiph and his "rawr, you hurt my allies imma kill ju" then you really do need to talk a bit to GOD and Xiph. That he goes all out in defense of his allies, and retribution on those that attack him/his is a positive, per me.

As for me, i am glad to see this treaty, seeing as it is two of our allies that have been friends for a while, finally [about damned time too] put this on paper.

Also, lol @ claims of MK being the puppeteer. Not that I would mind Archon pulling my string.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Voytek' date='13 June 2010 - 05:23 AM' timestamp='1276420972' post='2336054']
What a strange thing to get competitive about.
[/quote]

It was in response to this:

[quote name='commander thrawn' date='13 June 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1276408767' post='2335966']
Lets not kid ourselves, nearly everyone who comments here is in an alliance with some aspirations of political power, these alliances use the tools at their disposal in an attempt to get ahead. That includes the use of war to gain power. If you misstep as an alliance and lose a war then you should bite down and accept what comes to you, and if you think it is unfair then you have the option to fight or give up and disband/run. These options may not be good ones, but then isn't it naive to expect a good result from war?
[/quote]

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='13 June 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1276440341' post='2336145']
Oh and if the only thing you lot have against GOD is Xiph and his "rawr, you hurt my allies imma kill ju" then you really do need to talk a bit to GOD and Xiph. That he goes all out in defense of his allies, and retribution on those that attack him/his is a positive, per me.[/quote]

As someone who has been on the other side of a war against GOD, I concur.

[Aurion]

I'm really glad that this treaty has generated so much healthy discussion, instead of a b'aw fest because Xiph flipped off someone's kitten or something!

That would be just [i]terrible[/i].


[quote name='Ezequiel' date='13 June 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1276405203' post='2335897']
It's really not a good sign if you have to put in a Civility clause in a treaty... Is it not?


Ezequiel.
[/quote]

The original one had that same clause, most likely.

Obligatory sup MK.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Aurion

[Daikos]

This treaty is disgusting and you are worse than NPO.

I like it.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Daikos

[chris8967]

This is truly sexy, congrats. MK and GOD.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' date='13 June 2010 - 04:40 AM' timestamp='1276422011' post='2336056']
C&G is in no way civilized. We are barbarians, remember?
[/quote]

Lies, everyone knows that it's the NSO who's [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpF3jO1n9bA"]barbaric[/url]!

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 June 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1276369238' post='2335249']
Ew.

There was a mental Image I didn't need.
[/quote]

Mental image given.


Honestly, I'm kinda surprised that none of ya have figured out that Xiphosis holds grudges. 3 years on average. No exceptions.

[James IV]

This is defiantly awesome to see. I have been on the other side of GOD before as well and you either win, or don't mess with them. I don't blame Xiph for enforcing [OOC]Castle Doctrine/[OOC] in his sphere of influence.

[Tautology]

There's no doubt that MK and GOD are both defiantly awesome alliances.

[Mixoux]

I'm fairly surprised that this thread spawned a [i]civil[/i] discussion about our policies. Huh.

Also glad that this finally went through.

[LJ Scott]

Ascend!

Ascend!


Also generic wishing of congratulations.

[Leigon]

Finally.
Guess i can start looking for a new signature now.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='13 June 2010 - 01:52 AM' timestamp='1276408317' post='2335959']
I see harsh terms as unfair, not fair ones.
[/quote]

An alliance through its conduct may earn harsh terms. It is possible for terms to be both harsh and fair.

[quote]
As I said, I'd personally give white peace to everyone to avoid alliances fostering resentment towards me and that's how I'd like to be treated.
[/quote]

We tried that in GW1, it took us 3 years to recover from that mistake. If someone is already determined to dominate/kill no amount of touchy feely will change that, the only way to deal with such is harshly. If an alliance will not reform of their own initiative you take away their ability to threaten you.

[quote name='Banksy' date='13 June 2010 - 06:49 AM' timestamp='1276426173' post='2336071']
You might technically have the choice not to enter, but I think it's accepted that you fight a war when your treaty partner is attacked. The way I see it, when you attack an alliance (directly), you expect their treaty partners to back them up, so you are effectively DoWing them too. It's not the alliance's choice to uphold their treaty, it's the choice of the original attacker to accept the consequences of their actions (i.e. counter attacks).
[/quote]

Not so, we've seen people dance a merry little jig around RoK despite treaty obligations out of fear of drawing Polar down on their heads. Its been done before. Xiphosis is merely attempting to establish something similar. And hes always been up front about it.

[Arthur Blair]

I like this treaty. GOD has the same policy as I do when it comes to those who attack us.

Destroy.

[TehChron]

Congratulations to GOD and MK for this fine treaty.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Chron

[President Obama]

Congrats on the treaty.

[Ardus]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='13 June 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1276476470' post='2336541']
[b]We tried that in GW1,[/b] it took us 3 years to recover from that mistake. If someone is already determined to dominate/kill no amount of touchy feely will change that, the only way to deal with such is harshly. If an alliance will not reform of their own initiative you take away their ability to threaten you.[/quote]

You might want to clarify that we. Do you mean "we who are aligned opposite Pacifica?"

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Ardus' date='13 June 2010 - 10:38 PM' timestamp='1276483078' post='2336657']
You might want to clarify that we. Do you mean "we who are aligned opposite Pacifica?"
[/quote]

I meant 'we' as in the community at large, there could really be no other meaning since truth be told there isn't a whole lot left of the political structures that existed back then, there aren't many alliances who can trade their roots back to great war freaking one, and of those most have changed drastically since.

Maybe I should have just picked a more recent example and avoided ambiguity all together, but its what popped into my head.

[nippy]

Good to see. I love you both.