Robster83 Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1281313334' post='2405438'] They're different? No, they really aren't. And SF and co target NPO in this and we know it? Evidence? Logs? Such a bold statement latent with unbearable logic. The fact is that this isn't "any excuse"; NSO aided the rogue [b]after[/b] being warned that if they did so there would be consequences. Sorry if you bunch can't just parade around doing whatever you please. And moral obligations? Perhaps I misused the meaning. Maybe the "Mutual Defense Pact" part of MDP/MDoAP is something I should be talking about, then. I didn't realize that in such treaties a request had to be made to come to one's aid. I thought that was an ODP, but apparently I have been duped and wronged here. I don't give two craps if NSO's allies don't join as I am not even at war here; just making the point that, in this case, the MDP/MDoAP/MADP clauses in their treaties are being rendered "optional". Play with this as you may, it matters not. [/quote] If you are ignorant enough to not bother reading up on what several others said already then why continue posting? "I didn't realize that in such treaties a request had to be made to come to one's aid." - I didnt realise that in such treaties a request not to defend an ally could not be made... then its up to us whether to listen to such a request or to uphold the treaty. Again as you mentioned you shouldnt give two craps and perhaps stay out of this, if you have no idea what you are rambling on about. You cannot deny that the summary of the situation is that the the CB is mediocre at best and over-reaction at worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1281313534' post='2405461'] Or perhaps they dont want their allies to pay for the silly mistake they just made. [/quote] No. We're taking this like men, for our foes are cowards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1281313534' post='2405461'] Or perhaps they dont want their allies to pay for the silly mistake they just made. [/quote] Quite frankly I'm upset that anyone has to go through a BS war because of my mistake, and would much prefer if I was the only target here. Granted, we might disagree entirely on what my mistake actually was, I suspect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1281313603' post='2405471'] Pez, I don't [i]really[/i] expect you or anyone else who has made up their minds on the issue to believe me, but I like you so I feel compelled to tell you that NSO is the real target. I personally think the CB is solid, but if you have issues with it, I can respect that. It is, however, the reason their is currently a war going on. It's not to strike at anyone else, and if NSO isn't calling in help, that is actually a positive for me, personally, because I like several of the alliances who likely would have chained in and wasn't looking forward to finding them opposite me again should the war expand. [/quote] I don't actually take issue with the CB itself. There are aspects of it I'm a bit meh about, but the overall idea is reasonably justified. What I take issue with is the utter lack of willingness to discuss it at all, and the response to "can we talk about this" being a war declaration. The two highest ranking people in the alliance weren't even around to know about it or have a chance to try to resolve it. That's poor form, and a load of crap. Edited August 9, 2010 by pezstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281312879' post='2405387'] I doubt very much that the NSO's treaties include a "request for help" clause. Thus I'm going to conclude that any treaty partner not defending the Legion of Brown is led by lying cowards. [/quote] Many times many alliances have asked their allies to stay out of a war for any one of many reasons. Thus your conclusion is stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Hakim' timestamp='1281313537' post='2405462'] So we are all supposed to use VE admission rules now? Power corrupts.... [/quote] Not at all, just using it as example of how this situation was easily avoided had they asked the person the question 'does anyone want you dead?'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankeefan2 Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1281312883' post='2405388'] I did look at the facts, and if you check with MHA you will find that he was ghosting them. I remain at a loss how, even if he was MHA, it involves the Sith. [/quote] The funny thing is he wasn't a ghost, he was an applicant. But, when we found out about all the problems he was having with his former alliance, TENE, he was denied. Anyway, I can't say I feel much pity for NSO, but at least you're not dragging your allies down with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote]Or perhaps they dont want their allies to pay for the silly mistake they just made.[/quote] The silly mistake results in a silly war... Is it me or does that in itself sound like RoK were desperate for a war, and picked any reason to get involved in one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Normis Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Ahhh...the whole "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." tactic...I get it now. Best of luck NSO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Wad of Lint' timestamp='1281313667' post='2405481'] No. We're taking this like men, for our foes are cowards. [/quote] Yes, for the definition of cowardice is following through on something you said you were going to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olaf Styke Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Heft' timestamp='1281313687' post='2405484'] Quite frankly I'm upset that anyone has to go through a BS war because of my mistake, and would much prefer if I was the only target here. Granted, we might disagree entirely on what my mistake actually was, I suspect. [/quote] I should point out that it would have been much easier not to risk putting everyone through this war in the first place, and all it would have taken is saving your 6 million dollars in aid for a well-deserving member, rather than a rogue that you KNEW RoK had a big problem with. I'm just saying, assessing the risk involved here, I'm sure any one of your members deserved that 6 mill in aid more than the rogue, and it clearly wasn't worth a war to do so. I'm not even sure why you sent that aid in the first place unless you were actually aiming to piss off Hoo. Edit: All I really want to know is WHY you sent the aid? Edited August 9, 2010 by Olaf Styke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Kevlar' timestamp='1281313609' post='2405472'] I think the point is no one gives two craps about your interpretation of other people's treaties That's for them to squabble over -Kev [/quote] Some statements are really not open to interpretation. You defend your allies or you do not. If there's a clause giving one a reason not to, that's one thing. Otherwise it's just self-serving cowardice not to come to their assistance. [quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1281313764' post='2405493'] Many times many alliances have asked their allies to stay out of a war for any one of many reasons. Thus your conclusion is stupid. [/quote] So words only have the meanings that we want them to mean? Edited August 9, 2010 by Ashoka the Great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281313064' post='2405404'] We at Nordreich tend to abide by agreements to defend allies. I thought the STA felt the same way. [/quote] Haha, come [i]on[/i]. If there's one alliance you can't accuse of cowardice in all Cyber Nations it's STA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1281312200' post='2405305'] How hard was it to comprehend "If you do this, we will take it as an act of war". You made your bed NSO, lie in it. [/quote] So if I said that if GOD doesn't change team colour to pink, TOP rolls them, would we be fully justified in attacking you when you declined? I gave you fair warning and everything so it's totally your fault. The point everyone is making is that RoK's hard line stance was unreasonable and clearly intended to provoke a war. The fact that NSO stood their ground and seemed to take a similarly hard line stance doesn't mean either party deserves to get rolled over it. This is something that a 10 minute conversation would sort out if both sides were looking for a reasonable diplomatic solution. Clearly that isn't the case here, so it's not really a surprise that this insignificant incident has been blown way out of proportion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Damnit, who the hell cares about rolling brown Legion? Lame CB ain't worth it if we can't roll their allies too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Enigma Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Corinan' timestamp='1281313602' post='2405470'] What you're doing. You're bad at it. [/quote] im not sure what you think im trying to do, but i'll try harder next time i swear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281313064' post='2405404'] We at Nordreich tend to abide by agreements to defend allies. I thought the STA felt the same way. [/quote] Seriously dude, you're barking up the wrong tree. Requesting allies stay out is nothing new in CN politics and certainly nothing new with how the NSO conducts its wars. And to impugn the honor of all their allies over this? That's very very classless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvdcchn Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281312879' post='2405387'] I doubt very much that the NSO's treaties include a "request for help" clause. Thus I'm going to conclude that any treaty partner not defending the Legion of Brown is led by lying cowards. [/quote] oh snap! its already time gents, cant get the war you really want, try this fine product.. [img]http://www.stimulate.com.au/home/stimulate/images/products/SWUIB.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakim Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 This is two leaders and alliances having to save face...both stubborn enough to make sure that their individual side was heard and respected. This should have been a duel between RoK and NSO, with individual honor at stake, Instead RoK loses more here by calling in others to fight in the playground. Hoo, I love ya man...but you could have won this by taking them on in a one on one fight... I do not believe the conspiracy theorists or their conspiracies stated here and in other threads. NSO gains more by taking them all on... RoK you lost an opportunity here... #just saying Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheThirdMark Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 Someone, a rogue in this case, is at war. That someone, in this case a rogue, joins an Alliance (happens to be NSO). That Alliance, in this case NSO, didnt check that someone's, in this case a rogue, warscreen. That Alliance, in this case NSO, was contacted about the recent history. That Alliance, in this case NSO, insisted on letting this escalate. That Alliance, in this case NSO, committed one of the most clean Acts of War. And now you start whining about it? Thank you for showing your roots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wad of Lint Posted August 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1281313852' post='2405500'] Yes, for the definition of cowardice is following through on something you said you were going to do. [/quote] No. That is exactly what we ARE doing. The definition of cowardice is asking others to fight YOUR battles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1281313852' post='2405500'] Yes, for the definition of cowardice is following through on something you said you were going to do. [/quote] Ah, but the thing is it's against NSO. We are clearly the bad guys for attacking them, the facts don't matter. They [i]are[/i] the cutting-edge in alliances after all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote]for the definition of cowardice is following through on something you said you were going to do.[/quote] Uhm yeah that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281313883' post='2405503'] Some statements are really not open to interpretation. You defend your allies or you do not. If there's a clause giving one a reason not to, that's one thing. Otherwise it's just self-serving cowardice not to come to their assistance. [/quote] Let me get this straight... you are accusing the STA (of all people) of being self-serving cowards and bad friends because they are listening to and respecting the (clearly stated and perfectly understandable) wishes of their ally? What planet are you on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevlar Posted August 9, 2010 Report Share Posted August 9, 2010 [quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281313883' post='2405503'] So words only have the meanings that we want them to mean? [/quote] It would be kind of weird if they meant things we didn't mean. -Kev 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.