GOONS DoW Announcement

[Squid33]

I love GOONS, they make me laugh

[Haquertal]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281632671' post='2412850']
[color="#0000FF"]All I see is one offensive war from Facepunch (that sam00 fellow), and it isn't even against GOD. If you wanted to raid your former protectorate just come out and say so. You're fooling no one with this charade.[/color]
[/quote]

And wars can't be peaced out and deleted, right?

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281632671' post='2412850']
[color="#0000FF"]All I see is one offensive war from Facepunch (that sam00 fellow), and it isn't even against GOD. If you wanted to raid your former protectorate just come out and say so. You're fooling no one with this charade.[/color]
[/quote]
Sam00 posted an official alliance announcement declaring war on all the people attacking NSO. His complete lack of ability to actually engage in wars is a different issue entirely.

Besides, we were planning on doing this anyway.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1281635510' post='2412900']
Sam00 posted an official alliance announcement declaring war on all the people attacking NSO. His complete lack of ability to actually engage in wars is a different issue entirely.

Besides, we were planning on doing this anyway.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I know you were. So, why can't you simply say it? You need not justify yourself under the guise of "defending your allies," especially if it isn't the case. Hiding under such false pretenses doesn't suit you.[/color]

[Rooman33]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1281629503' post='2412789']
Really? Where are we screwing up here? Defending our allies, or defending the AA that merged into us? The fact that we can both defend an AA and attack it for two completely separate instances that occurred at the same time was too delicious to pass up. We're GOONS, after all, and we find that kind of !@#$ pretty funny. Also, people that use the word 'values' as some sort of demonstration of moral elitism disgust me. Go fling your do-gooder gibberish elsewhere.
[/quote]

It has absolutely nothing with "do-gooder" gibberish. When I say values, I mean things we value - I wasn't speaking about morality in any way. The GOP has aligned itself with "spheres of interest" (i.e. values) of Bob. We value Conservatism, neutrality and the green sphere above all else and consider ourselves aligned to those elements of the planet - irrespective of what any other alliance does or doesn't do. That's the frame of reference from which I'm speaking. I'm not calling your actions "immoral," nor did I say anything which in any way suggests that I was. I think you guys are being a bit defensive here...

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1281629512' post='2412791']
That's all well and good, but can you explain what that has to do with this thread? There's only one treaty that has anything to do with the OP, and I think you'll find that we're upholding it quite nicely.
[/quote]

I mean, most people would consider rolling your protectorate an odd occurrence... it stresses the point that, though they had a treaty with you and felt assured that you would protect them - you've encountered circumstances (which I'm not necessarily condemning by the way - though you seem to think I am) to justify an attack on them. Point being, treaties are only valuable, valid and upheld insofar as each of the participants wills them to be so. From my perspective, that kind of speaks to the futility of treaties. Hence why I think this circumstance illustrates the justification for that belief.

I'm not condemning your actions - as it's none of our darn business what you do and we're totally disinterested and detached from you political decisions until you decide to tread on one of our spheres of interest. I'm just pointing out that your actions illustrate the relativity and subjectivity of treaty adherence. It's just an opinion and a commentary on treaties as a whole, don't take it so personal.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Rooman33

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281637327' post='2412944']
I mean, most people would consider rolling your protectorate an odd occurrence... it stresses the point that, though they had a treaty with you and felt assured that you would protect them - you still used the circumstances of this specific issue (which I'm not necessarily condemning by the way - though you seem to think I am) to justify an attack on them. Point being, treaties are only valuable, valid and uphold insofar as each of the participants wills them to be so. From my perspective, that kind of speaks to the futility of treaties. Hence why I think this circumstance illustrates the justification for that belief. I'm not condemning your actions - as it's none of our darn business and we're totally disinterested and detached from you political decisions. I'm just pointing out that your actions illustrate the relativity and subjectivity of treaty adherence. It's just an opinion and a commentary on treaties as a whole, don't take it so personal.
[/quote]
Don't worry - I'm not taking this personally or thinking your are condemning the action. I just think you're unaware of what is actually happening in the OP. Facepunch is not our protectorate; they disbanded and merged into us. We offered a verbal agreement of protection for the AA that is still active, but that doesn't mean residuals on the AA can get away with declaring war on our [i]treaty partner[/i] GOD.

[Mandolus]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281636984' post='2412935']
[color="#0000FF"]I know you were. So, why can't you simply say it? You need not justify yourself under the guise of "defending your allies," especially if it isn't the case. Hiding under such false pretenses doesn't suit you.[/color]
[/quote]

I know you probably don't have much to laugh about with your alliance getting rolled while you hide in peace, but I'm pretty sure this announcement is supposed to be kind of humorous.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Mandolus

[nippy]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281637327' post='2412944']
It has absolutely nothing with "do-gooder" gibberish. When I say values, I mean things we value - I wasn't speaking about morality in any way. The GOP has aligned itself with "spheres of interest" (i.e. values) of Bob. We value Conservatism, neutrality and the green sphere above all else and consider ourselves aligned to those elements of the planet - irrespective of what any other alliance does or doesn't do. That the frame of reference from which I'm speaking. I'm not calling your actions "immoral," nor did I say anything which suggests that I was. I think you guys are being a bit defensive here...[/quote]
Being defensive is a normal reaction to unfounded remarks being made about one's self. You straight-up insulted our quality as a treaty member as well as our standings within the political spectrum of this planet. How can you [b]not[/b] expect us to retort?


[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281637327' post='2412944']
I mean, most people would consider rolling your protectorate an odd occurrence... it stresses the point that, though they had a treaty with you and felt assured that you would protect them - you still used the circumstances of this specific issue (which I'm not necessarily condemning by the way - though you seem to think I am) to justify an attack on them.
[/quote]
This would make sense, would they still be our protectorate. [b]They merged into us[/b]. We're protecting their AA due to the merger, but an alliance that merges into another ceases to be an alliance, thereby voiding any treaties they've held.

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281637327' post='2412944']
Point being, treaties are only valuable, valid and uphold insofar as each of the participants wills them to be so.
[/quote]
See above.

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281637327' post='2412944']
From my perspective, that kind of speaks to the futility of treaties. Hence why I think this circumstance illustrates the justification for that belief. I'm not condemning your actions - as it's none of our darn business and we're totally disinterested and detached from you political decisions. I'm just pointing out that your actions illustrate the relativity and subjectivity of treaty adherence. It's just an opinion and a commentary on treaties as a whole, don't take it so personal.
[/quote]
Treaties die when an alliance ceases to exist. If you expect treaties to continue on long after the alliances that have them go the way of the dodo, then yes...every treaty is futile.

[Beefspari]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281636984' post='2412935']
[color="#0000FF"]I know you were. So, why can't you simply say it? You need not justify yourself under the guise of "defending your allies," especially if it isn't the case. Hiding under such false pretenses doesn't suit you.[/color]
[/quote]
Cause it's more fun this way?

[Rooman33]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1281637883' post='2412963']
Don't worry - I'm not taking this personally or thinking your are condemning the action. I just think you're unaware of what is actually happening in the OP. Facepunch is not our protectorate; they disbanded and merged into us. We offered a verbal agreement of protection for the AA that is still active, but that doesn't mean residuals on the AA can get away with declaring war on our [i]treaty partner[/i] GOD.
[/quote]

Yeah - a political agreement, unspoken or otherwise (i.e. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty]treaty[/url]) which circumstances have led you to revoke. Hence the point. I'm not calling into question the circumstances, or your decision regarding them. I'm not defending Facepunch. I'm not defending anyone. I'm making the general observation - a true observation by the way - that your decision illustrates how treaties (spoken, unwritten, written or otherwise) are subjective. They only apply if you want them to, hence why we think they're futile. More below...

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1281638223' post='2412973']
Being defensive is a normal reaction to unfounded remarks being made about one's self. You straight-up insulted our quality as a treaty member as well as our standings within the political spectrum of this planet. How can you [b]not[/b] expect us to retort?[/quote]

Um, please point to where I "straight-up insulted your quality as a treaty member as well as your standings within the political spectrum of this planet." I did nothing of the sort, you've completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the point I'm making.

[quote]This would make sense, would they still be our protectorate. [b]They merged into us[/b]. We're protecting their AA due to the merger,[/quote]


Per your treaty, yes...

[quote]but an alliance that merges into another ceases to be an alliance, thereby voiding any treaties they've held.

Treaties die when an alliance ceases to exist. If you expect treaties to continue on long after the alliances that have them go the way of the dodo, then yes...every treaty is futile.
[/quote]

Then why are you still defending the AA? It's a rhetorical question.

You both seem to be missing the point I'm making. I am NOT calling into question [i]why[/i] your alliance canceled it's verbal agreement (i.e. treaty) with the AA. I don't care what your motives were. That's not at all interesting to me. What I'm pointing out is [i]that[/i] you canceled your treaty while simultaneously [i]opting[/i] to honor it. This to me epitomizes the truism that treaties only apply if/when an alliance wants them to. Which begs the question - why have them at all?

I'm not making a commentary on your political decision. I'm just making a general observation regarding the nature of treaties which your political decision highlights. Seriously... calm down...

Edited August 12, 2010 by Rooman33

[General Scipio]

Dude, just because you keep saying we have a treaty doesn't make it true. But your alliance is based on conservatism, so I guess redefining things to fit your agenda isn't surprising.

Edited August 12, 2010 by General Scipio

[Rooman33]

[quote name='General Scipio' timestamp='1281641640' post='2413057']
Dude, just because you keep saying we have a treaty doesn't make it true. But your alliance is based on conservatism, so I guess redefining things to fit your agenda isn't surprising.
[/quote]

A treaty is a contract... contracts can be written or unwritten. Apparently you thought it was binding enough to defend a deceased AA... hence the point

But I'll try not to take the swiping blow to my politics personally.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Rooman33

[Delector]

The next step will be GOONS DoW on GOONS...lol

Awesome DoW! I´m laughing for hours

[nippy]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281641885' post='2413065']
A treaty is a contract... contracts can be written or unwritten. Apparently you thought it was binding enough to defend a deceased AA... hence the point
[/quote]

Your alliance should definitely avoid treaties completely. Your lack of understanding in how business is conducted on this planet is all-too apparent. Protection of an AA after dissolution of an alliance is commonplace, yet never before have I seen an "AA protection duration just in case one of the signers happens to disband or merge" written into a treaty itself. Protection is neither required nor does it have a standard duration. Some last a week, some are indefinite. If you were simply sharing a broad view over treaties in general, then there wouldn't be an issue to argue here. The fact is, you chose [b]our[/b] announcement as your 'example' for why you consider treaties pointless, and then provided skewed views over treaties in general to back up your opinion and why it should matter in this thread.

Edited August 12, 2010 by nippy

[mrwuss]

[size="7"][center]GOONS DoW on GOONS[/center][/size]


GOONS have attacked the protectorate of GOONS and therefore will be punished.

[Louisa]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281641885' post='2413065']
A treaty is a contract... contracts can be written or unwritten. Apparently you thought it was binding enough to defend a deceased AA... hence the point
[/quote]

I beg to differ, my good sir, as witness my signature. Also your point seems to hilariously misunderstand what is going on here.

[Rooman33]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1281642823' post='2413105']
Your alliance should definitely avoid treaties completely. Your lack of understanding in how business is conducted on this planet is all-too apparent. Protection of an AA after dissolution of an alliance is commonplace, yet never before have I seen an "AA protection duration just in case one of the signers happens to disband or merge" written into a treaty itself. Protection is neither required nor does it have a standard duration. Some last a week, some are indefinite. If you were simply sharing a broad view over treaties in general, then there wouldn't be an issue to argue here. The fact is, you chose [b]our[/b] announcement as your 'example' for why you consider treaties pointless, and then provided skewed views over treaties in general to back up your opinion and why it should matter in this thread.
[/quote]

You're clearly missing the point, and trying to paint a vet of almost four years as completely ignorant about a basic thing like treaties isn't going to get you anywhere.

My point is that you simultaneously chose to protect the AA (honoring your unwritten treaty with that AA) and attack the AA (dissolving the unwritten treaty). It doesn't take a genius to see how this is a wonderful example of the subjective nature of treaty adherence. The basic observation about treaties is that they only apply if an alliance wants them to. Your actions here prove that beautifully. Why you're choosing to take it as a personal attack and resorting to ad hominems is beyond me. I've not condemned your decision. I'm not even talking about why you chose to do what you did with respect to your agreement with Facepunch. The point is that you made a choice - as does every alliance every single time they make the decision to honor or revoke a treaty. Thus the point. If you don't get that, and if you can't see how making this observation can be both relevant and not insulting at the same time, then I don't know what to do for you.

[ktarthan]

Okay so your definition of the word "treaty" is entirely different than the connotations it carries when mentioned on the OWF. You're trying to demonstrate that the GOP's divergance from the traditional treaty structure carries merrit, but you're using an example of something that is not considered a "treaty" on Bob. This seems horribly moot.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281643568' post='2413128']
You're clearly missing the point, and trying to paint a vet of almost four years as completely ignorant about a basic thing like treaties isn't going to get you anywhere.

My point is that you simultaneously chose to protect the AA (honoring your unwritten treaty with that AA) and attack the AA (dissolving the unwritten treaty). It doesn't take a genius to see how this is a wonderful example of the subjective nature of treaty adherence. The basic observation about treaties is that they only apply if an alliance wants them to. Your actions here prove that beautifully. Why you're choosing to take it as a personal attack and resorting to ad hominems is beyond me. I've not condemned your decision. I'm not even talking about why you chose to do what you did with respect to your agreement with Facepunch. The point is that you made a choice - as does every alliance every single time they make the decision to honor or revoke a treaty. Thus the point. If you don't get that, and if you can't see how making this observation can be both relevant and not insulting at the same time, then I don't know what to do for you.
[/quote]


I wish we had a treaty with you.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1281636984' post='2412935']
[color="#0000FF"]I know you were. So, why can't you simply say it? You need not justify yourself under the guise of "defending your allies," especially if it isn't the case. Hiding under such false pretenses doesn't suit you.[/color]
[/quote]


We are talking about war here, RV.

You should find a thread about peace...that way you have some insight to give.

[nippy]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281643568' post='2413128']
You're clearly missing the point, and trying to paint a vet of almost four years as completely ignorant about a basic thing like treaties isn't going to get you anywhere.
[/quote]
You're clearly ignorant despite your time on Bob, for the reasons I pointed out in my last post.

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281643568' post='2413128']
My point is that you simultaneously chose to protect the AA (honoring your unwritten treaty with that AA) and attack the AA (dissolving the unwritten treaty). It doesn't take a genius to see how this is a wonderful example of the subjective nature of treaty adherence.[/quote]
Apparently, it *does* take a genius to notice how we've simultaneously ransacked the remnants of our previous protectorate and utilized our previously stated protection of them to our advantage, allowing our smaller nations to attack two alliances in retaliation for attacks on the protected AA and enabling them to practice their war skills. But, of course, you wouldn't understand the genius of GOONS. We take advantage of opportunities such as these, not only providing entertainment for the population of Bob but also finding valid war targets through perfectly legal means.

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281643568' post='2413128']
The basic observation about treaties is that they only apply if an alliance wants them to. Your actions here prove that beautifully.
[/quote]
There you go again, ignoring the fact that [b]the treaty is !@#$@#$ nullified when an alliance ceases to exist[/b]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281643568' post='2413128']
Why you're choosing to take it as a personal attack and resorting to ad hominems is beyond me.
[/quote]
If I respond to this, are you just going to ask it again? You don't seem to remember the answers I give you...just askin'.

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281643568' post='2413128']
I've not condemned your decision. I'm not even talking about why you chose to do what you did with respect to your agreement with Facepunch. The point is that you made a choice - as does every alliance every single time they make the decision to honor or revoke a treaty. Thus the point. If you don't get that, and if you can't see how making this observation can be both relevant and not insulting at the same time, then I don't know what to do for you.
[/quote]
Don't do anything for us. You do not provide a service that we find valuable. We prefer our friends/treaty partners to be logical, intelligent, and able to follow conversations held in English. Your repeated argument about 'honoring or revoking a treaty' in the case of a disbanded, non-existent alliance proves that you possess none of the qualities we require. Sorry.

[Rooman33]

[quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1281644380' post='2413152']
Okay so your definition of the word "treaty" is entirely different than the connotations it carries when mentioned on the OWF. You're trying to demonstrate that the GOP's divergance from the traditional treaty structure carries merrit, but you're using an example of something that is not considered a "treaty" on Bob. This seems horribly moot.
[/quote]

I don't see how...

You guys saw your unwritten agreement to protect Facepunch as being still in action, so you declared on alliances attacking that AA. At the same time, you yourselves attack the AA. How is this not a great example of the subjectivity of contracts on Bob? Don't take it as a criticism, all it means is that Facepunch put you in the position to make the decision you did. Which is the point - that you had to apply subjective reasoning to determine how (and if) you'd honor your agreement with them. I'm not saying that you're right or wrong, and I'm not asserting any type of new definition of a treaty (though I linked to the basic definition above). I'm just saying that all agreements on Bob (written or unwritten) are only valid insofar as the alliances involved want them to be. So, we say, what's the point?

You don't have to agree with my assessment on the worth of treaties, but I want to make it clear that I'm not (as it was being suggested earlier) condemning the GOONS political action here.

[quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1281644397' post='2413153']
I wish we had a treaty with you.
[/quote]

You bet you do

Edited August 12, 2010 by Rooman33

[Rooman33]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1281644864' post='2413160']You're clearly ignorant despite your time on Bob, for the reasons I pointed out in my last post.[/quote]

None of which held any merit - as I pointed out in my last post.

[quote]Apparently, it *does* take a genius to notice how we've simultaneously ransacked the remnants of our previous protectorate and utilized our previously stated protection of them to our advantage, allowing our smaller nations to attack two alliances in retaliation for attacks on the protected AA and enabling them to practice their war skills. But, of course, you wouldn't understand the genius of GOONS. We take advantage of opportunities such as these, not only providing entertainment for the population of Bob but also finding valid war targets through perfectly legal means. [/quote]

Yeah, not only do I get that, I don't care because it's totally not what I'm talking about...

[quote]There you go again, ignoring the fact that [b]the treaty is !@#$@#$ nullified when an alliance ceases to exist[/b][/quote]

If it's nullified, then how can you honor it by protecting it? Do you see the disjoint in your argument here?

[quote]If I respond to this, are you just going to ask it again? You don't seem to remember the answers I give you...just askin'.[/quote]

You seem to have your mind made up that this conversation is about something that it clearly isn't... just saying...

[quote]Don't do anything for us. You do not provide a service that we find valuable. We prefer our friends/treaty partners to be logical, intelligent, and able to follow conversations held in English. Your repeated argument about 'honoring or revoking a treaty' in the case of a disbanded, non-existent alliance proves that you possess none of the qualities we require. Sorry.[/quote]

Wow... and with that, I'll leave the thread. OOC: I apologize for trying to introduce a higher-level discussion of game politics in a thread where free thought exchange clearly wasn't welcome. Clearly, some folks aren't able to grasp and respond to nuanced arguments. IC: You guys picked a fight with me over a statement that you very clearly didn't understand. When I respond to your attacks by clarifying what I meant, you continue to insult my intelligence. Stay classy.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Rooman33' timestamp='1281645211' post='2413172']
Stay classy.
[/quote]

Will do!

[Mikeyrox]

One of the funniest threads I have read in a while. Nothing like coming to the defense of an (ex) protectorate and attacking them for something different.

o/ GOONS