An Imperial Decree

[Shellhound]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1293070162' post='2550847']
Goddamnit, I was really, REALLY wanting UBD to get rolled.
[/quote]

Weren't we all?

[mhawk]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293068876' post='2550811']
Disregard FARK, attack TPE,INT. Who lacks testicular fortitude? Oh, that's right, you and your allies. ODN probably wouldn't even be in this if you lot weren't so afraid of fighting FARK.
[/quote]
This is a pathetic argument and I hardly believe an intelligent person as yourself fully believes such a statement. It's like calling the person that jumped over the 10,000 ft cliff into the water a coward because he didn't jump over the 10,000 ft drop onto solid ground. You used the same argument on TPF when we attacked avalanche. Entering a losing war is playing roulette with a semi auto, you're going lose - going to be outnumbered and outgunned no matter who you start your dance with.

[AirMe]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1293070745' post='2550863']
This is a pathetic argument and I hardly believe an intelligent person as yourself fully believes such a statement. It's like calling the person that jumped over the 10,000 ft cliff into the water a coward because he didn't jump over the 10,000 ft drop onto solid ground. You used the same argument on TPF when we attacked avalanche. Entering a losing war is playing roulette with a semi auto, you're going lose - going to be outnumbered and outgunned no matter who you start your dance with.
[/quote]

I don't buy into the "noble struggle of the micro alliance" anymore because there are so many of us out there.

I also don't remember TPF attacking Avalanche......

My premise for that statement is, FEAR and friends deployed in such a fashion to escalate the war by NOT declaring on FARK. I maintain the thought that if they would have declared on FARK, ODN and Sparta would still be sitting on the sidelines because FARK would absorb the hit that TPE and INT would have taken from NEW's allies countering.

But FEAR and friends left FARK out of the DoW, thus sending this war to escalation. Now, through back room deals, fear or just plain old threats, they are refusing to escalate even though that is the way they deployed their counter attack.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293070644' post='2550860']
MDoAP. NEW started an aggressive action. PC had the option in the language of the treaty to sit out. You can stop playing that card. I know you are smarter than that.
[/quote]

Thanks.

But the aggressive action argument is in the eye of the beholder, as I believe that NEW are the defenders here... But [i]that[/i] is something that is so thoroughly debated, so I won't bother to bring it up again.

The thing is, weather or not we agree on that. My opinion is equal in [i]both[/i] cases. In both cases, the "cowardly" alliances should have come to the aid of their allies, no matter what.

[SirWilliam]

[quote name='Shellhound' timestamp='1293070707' post='2550861']
Weren't we all?
[/quote]

Heh, touche.

[Gomlize]

This wont end well...

[Kochers]

[quote name='RebelBreeze' timestamp='1293050093' post='2550290']
That is if your alliance is still an alliance after the war
[/quote]
lol, that was funny. You should do stand up.

[quote name='Trouble Terrible' timestamp='1293050374' post='2550297']
Waiting to see all the people who called iFok and Poison Clan cowards hail this announcement.
[/quote]
I will gladly be one of those people. Europa is telling their allies "don't come in" whereas NEW asked iFok and PC to come in and they said no (as understand it from conversations I've had).

[quote name='thedestro' timestamp='1293050679' post='2550307']
UBD, Invicta, Wolfpack

You won't attack. No balls
[/quote]

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293070644' post='2550860']
MDoAP. NEW started an aggressive action. PC had the option in the language of the treaty to sit out. You can stop playing that card. I know you are smarter than that.

[/quote]
They didn't listen to us when we said the same thing. Oh well. Maybe you'll have better luck. If you use too much logic you'll lose them though.
[quote name='Kochers' timestamp='1293071193' post='2550871']
lol, that was funny. You should do stand up.
I will gladly be one of those people. Europa is telling their allies "don't come in" [b]whereas NEW asked iFok and PC to come in and they said no[/b] (as understand it from conversations I've had).

[/quote]
edit: [b]dead wrong[/b], please don't act like you would know.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Steve Buscemi

[Mathias]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1293070745' post='2550863']
This is a pathetic argument and I hardly believe an intelligent person as yourself fully believes such a statement. It's like calling the person that jumped over the 10,000 ft cliff into the water a coward because he didn't jump over the 10,000 ft drop onto solid ground. You used the same argument on TPF when we attacked avalanche. Entering a losing war is playing roulette with a semi auto, you're going lose - going to be outnumbered and outgunned no matter who you start your dance with.
[/quote]

[font="Georgia"]If they were so concerned about fighting a losing war, they should have called their allies in to help.

Please don't paint them as the downtrodden losers when they didn't even try to win.[/font]

[AirMe]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1293071023' post='2550868']
Thanks.

But the aggressive action argument is in the eye of the beholder, as I believe that NEW are the defenders here... But [i]that[/i] is something that is so thoroughly debated, so I won't bother to bring it up again.

The thing is, weather or not we agree on that. My opinion is equal in [i]both[/i] cases. In both cases, the "cowardly" alliances should have come to the aid of their allies, no matter what.
[/quote]

So you are ok with an alliance raiding an AA that has multiple public statements of protection? I helped protect the GGA when they disbanded with nothing more than a post in their disbandment thread and NO ONE attacked them. Everyone knows an attack on a protected entity is an attack on the protector.

We write Optional language into treaties to avoid being pulled into a stupid situation. It is why we all have non chaining clauses and what not. I love the fact that you think NEW is the defending party. If we didn't have this language we should all just sign MADP's because that is what you are inferring PC and iFOK had. But this is another argument for another time.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1293071233' post='2550874']
They didn't listen to us when we said the same thing. Oh well. Maybe you'll have better luck. If you use too much logic you'll lose them though.[/quote]

Nah, I can see your argument and your point of view, I just disagree with it. Or well, not as much iFOK as PC, but still


[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293071344' post='2550876']
So you are ok with an alliance raiding an AA that has multiple public statements of protection?
[/quote]

Nope, not really.

I am just not OK with the double standards shown by a certain alliance in regards to this issue, and I believe that the alliance in question should have acted differently when you take their image into account... That's why I won't hassle iFOK [i]that[/i] much

Edited December 23, 2010 by SpiderJerusalem

[Timeline]

Europa, good show.

Also ignore all the fools who are shouting off at the mouth, they are unhappy with the fact they do not get to beat down on ex Q alliances some more, I know, I know, Sparta, FOK, TOP, MHA and IRON are all apart of the Ex Q alliances but Sparta has been known to switch sides more time then people flip a pancake.

MK member stating its fair decision by PC and iFOK to turn there back on a MDoAP
[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1292822877' post='2545764']
Optional Aggression, champ.

This is a fair decision by PC and iFOK and probably better than NEW deserves.
[/quote]

This MK member now claims people have to follow their treaties ?
[quote name='GuMMyWoRm' timestamp='1293069733' post='2550839']
Can someone please tell me why treaties are even signed in the first place? Seems when they are supposed to be honored the parties involved ignore them, but during peacetime they make sure to plaster the owf with how their such good friends and would die for each other. God forbid someone lose a few pixels.
[/quote]

WOW MK MEOW MEOW, at least get your members on the same thought patten or is just due to the fact PB would slap you about ?

Edited December 23, 2010 by Timeline

[Kongo Jack IV]

Yeah I mean really. They want a war so bad they should start one them selves.

[nutkase]

Good to see you are not dragging your allies into this.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1293071399' post='2550877']
Nah, I can see your argument and your point of view, I just disagree with it. Or well, not as much iFOK as PC, but still
[/quote]
I wasn't so much replying to your quote, as with others. But it's a valid argument to say NEW were the defenders. I disagree of course. But then it's not a cowardly action so much as it's a e-lawyering. So people could say we were poor readers of treaties. That would be a valid criticism. But not cowards.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Steve Buscemi

[Port Royale]

I find this nearly comical that Europa must sit here admist an onslaught of critcism about what they decide to do with [color="#FF0000"][b][u]THEIR[/u][/b][/color] treaties. You can argue all you want about what you think Europa's treaties mean but at the end of the day your opinion is worth crap. Complain all you want but in no way is it going to affect Europa's decision. As a member of UBD i am honored to be allied to such a wonderful group of people.

o7 Europa <3

[AirMe]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1293071399' post='2550877']
Nah, I can see your argument and your point of view, I just disagree with it. Or well, not as much iFOK as PC, but still




Nope, not really.

I am just not OK with the double standards shown by a certain alliance in regards to this issue, and I believe that the alliance in question should have acted differently when you take their image into account... That's why I won't hassle iFOK [i]that[/i] much
[/quote]


I don't bend my standards because of someones reputation. I am one of the biggest PC haters out there, and I have been defending their action in this matter.

[SpiderJerusalem]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1293071606' post='2550884']
I wasn't so much replying to your quote, as with others. But it's a valid argument to say NEW were the defenders. I disagree of course. But then it's not a cowardly action so much as it's a e-laywering. So people could say we were poor readers of treaties. That would be a valid criticism. But not cowards.
[/quote]

Note the "cowardly"... As I didn't come up with a better name for the entire grouping of alliances that have chosen this course of action.

If you were offended, I will gladly retract my statement and give you my humble apologies


[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293071736' post='2550886']
I don't bend my standards because of someones reputation. I am one of the biggest PC haters out there, and I have been defending their action in this matter.
[/quote]

Oh, then we are different people. Because I will gladly bend my standards in an issue like this. At least when PC have bent theirs like a... Well.... Two dollar *Censored, censored, censored, censored* donkey *censored, censored* would bend her *censored*

Edited December 23, 2010 by SpiderJerusalem

[Locke]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293068667' post='2550806']
I've been writing treaties for 4 and a half years. You do not have an MDAP with Wolfpack. You have an MoDoAP with them. From the looks of it, you guys don't have the testicular fortitude to sign an MADP with anyone. And that isn't a bad thing, you should only sign an MADP with an alliance if you trust them with the passwords to your bank accounts.

Please name your treaties accordingly and you won't have a 12 page discussion on why people are not honoring their treaties.
[/quote]
It's not than unusual a clause, really; I think SF has similar language. The reason such language is included is because of lawyers who insist on pouring over every word of a treaty. A treaty is symbolic of the level of relationship between two parties, made public for the world to see. They decide the terms of their relationship and how they want to call it. It is still a mutual decision, no matter what you want to call it. They have to agree to mutually defend or attack, thus making it an MDAP. They decide when the treaty is activated, that's all there is to it.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1293070644' post='2550860']
MDoAP. NEW started an aggressive action. PC had the option in the language of the treaty to sit out. You can stop playing that card. I know you are smarter than that.
[/quote]
When did it happen that the definition of defense changed? Aggression means you are attacking someone at the same time as your ally. Also known as, when NEW raided DF, PC/iFOK would have the OPTION of attacking with them. Declaring on those attacking NEW would be defending NEW. NEW started the attack, but that has to deal with potential non-chaining clauses. You know, the entire reason those things exist. Treaties have always worked this way, I'm not sure why you're claiming differently. And I know you know that, you're just trying to argue against the people that aren't on your side of the treaty web. Since NEW (apparently) requested their allies not come it, it was fine. But your argument is just wrong.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Geoffron X

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' timestamp='1293071746' post='2550887']
Note the "cowardly"... As I didn't come up with a better name for the entire grouping of alliances that have chosen this course of action.

If you were offended, I will gladly retract my statement and give you my humble apologies
[/quote]
Not offended, no worries. And you certainly don't fit into that logic-less group of people that I've seen throw out all kinds of garbage in failed PR attempts. We all know it's PR with some/most people. That's pretty much all this game is now with an occasionally almost-decent war every blue moon.

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1293071903' post='2550892']
When did it happen that the definition of defense changed? Aggression means you are attacking someone at the same time as your ally. Also known as, when NEW raided DF, PC/iFOK would have the OPTION of attacking with them. Declaring on those attacking NEW would be defending NEW. NEW started the attack, but that has to deal with potential non-chaining clauses. You know, the entire reason those things exist. Treaties have always worked this way, I'm not sure why you're claiming differently. And I know you know that, you're just trying to argue against the people that aren't on your side of the treaty web.
[/quote]
So you are now admitting you broke a treaty during the NSO-ROK war by not honoring it?

Edited December 23, 2010 by Steve Buscemi

[AirMe]

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1293071872' post='2550891']
It's not than unusual a clause, really; I think SF has similar language. The reason such language is included is because of lawyers who insist on pouring over every word of a treaty. A treaty is symbolic of the level of relationship between two parties, made public for the world to see. They decide the terms of their relationship and how they want to call it. It is still a mutual decision, no matter what you want to call it. They have to agree to mutually defend or attack, thus making it an MDAP. They decide when the treaty is activated, that's all there is to it.
[/quote]

That is contrary to my view. I see an MADP as a treaty that states you stand by the other alliance no matter what. I see an MADP as giving away part of your sovereignty. Anything short of that is an MDoAP, because you are leaving an option not to help.

[Froggor]

Very honorable and respectable way to protect your allies Europa. I wish you a fun war and a quick rebuilding once the war is done.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Geoffron X' timestamp='1293071903' post='2550892']
When did it happen that the definition of defense changed? Aggression means you are attacking someone at the same time as your ally. Also known as, when NEW raided DF, PC/iFOK would have the OPTION of attacking with them. Declaring on those attacking NEW would be defending NEW. NEW started the attack, but that has to deal with potential non-chaining clauses. You know, the entire reason those things exist. Treaties have always worked this way, I'm not sure why you're claiming differently. And I know you know that, you're just trying to argue against the people that aren't on your side of the treaty web.
[/quote]

I refer you to: An attack on a protected entity is an attack on the protector. NEW started an offensive war against INT, TPE and FARK by attacking DF.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1293071942' post='2550893']
So you are now admitting you broke a treaty during the NSO-ROK war by not honoring it?
[/quote]
I added a sentence.