Jump to content

Legio Frigidum


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 650
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1292457112' post='2540468']
It [i]used to be the case[/i] that NPO Allies and Purple was a reasonable name for that bloc of power. With Invicta changing spheres, UPN pulling away in BiPolar, and Legion dropping Valhalla and BAPS (thus, also losing the connection to Olympus) the name doesn't really fit. Perhaps you'd like to come up with a catchy new name for that part of the treaty web?
[/quote]
Yeah, well, I don't really think it's a bloc in the sense that you mean here.

However I love the name Invict-O-Sphere. So now I'm torn. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1292463372' post='2540559']
I don't know which of you I find more ridiculous right now.
[/quote]

I'd really appreciate it if you'd give this thread a break for the day. My sense of self-satisfaction is dangerously high; I'm starting to consider applying to a certain aqua alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' timestamp='1292447659' post='2540344']
I'm surprised no one else noticed this.

A full day after the posting of the original treaty, the treaty text was edited to include the red text below:

It's clear that a full day after the posting of the treaty, they threw in a last-minute non-chaining clause. Thoughts on why they made the decision just now and not from the get-go?
[/quote]
That's really not all that special. It used to be that all treaties were assumed to be non-chaining, then people started thinking of them that way to draw parties into war. It's basically a lawyer's issue that's been inherited even up till today, with very few alliances specifying otherwise. In general it's best to assume that, unless a treaty is specified to be chaining, it isn't.

The real gem is the line right above that; it basically makes this treaty stronger than any other one they hold, even to their very close allies like STA.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1292450379' post='2540368']
Without that clause it reads as a supremacy clause rather than a non-chaining one. Not surprising they changed that.
[/quote]
Well, it still does read as a supremacy clause. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1292475795' post='2540694']
I'd really appreciate it if you'd give this thread a break for the day. My sense of self-satisfaction is dangerously high; I'm starting to consider applying to a certain aqua alliance.
[/quote]
Are you calling MHA smug? Surely you jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...