A Sad GOONS Announcement

[bigwoody]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293305438' post='2553702']
Are you trying to say you expected us to do it?
[/quote]
Well I can only speak from the perspective of my interactions with people. So, yeah, kinda did.

Nevertheless, many true colors being shown in the last few days.

[Leigon]

Saying that we're trying to block the whole ex-hegemony is ridiculous. There are various alliances I could imagine us allying from that side. TOP just isn't among them.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Leigon' timestamp='1293312398' post='2553768']
Saying that we're trying to block the whole ex-hegemony is ridiculous. There are various alliances I could imagine us allying from that side. TOP just isn't among them.
[/quote]
And you're free to chose that. You are not free, however, to chose who the rest of us ally.

[King Wally]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1293314048' post='2553774']
And you're free to chose that. You are not free, however, to chose who the rest of us ally.
[/quote]

Yeah but they are free to let you know they will be disconnecting themselves from your side of the treaty web if they don't like your other key strategy partners though.

If you want to have a cry over the demand fine but I personally think its still better then GOD just sitting quiet in a corner and either
A: not honoring a chain of treaty events involving TOP
or
B: just quietly cancelling on you anyway quoting "lack of communication" etc

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1293314048' post='2553774']
And you're free to chose that. You are not free, however, to chose who the rest of us ally.
[/quote]
Of course they may, that's politics. You don't actually believe that entities with power (or who perceive they have power) aren't allowed to try to leverage it? If that's the case, why leave GPA?

[zzzptm]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1293305438' post='2553702']
Are you trying to say you expected us to do it?
[/quote]

They knew about this [i]months[/i] ago.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1293316783' post='2553789']
Of course they may, that's politics. You don't actually believe that entities with power (or who perceive they have power) aren't allowed to try to leverage it? If that's the case, why leave GPA?
[/quote]
They can try and leverage it all they want. I'm not going to put up with it, however. Of course, that's why I left GPA, too.

[Lord Boris]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1293155073' post='2552184']
This isn't how you treat friends and allies. It's how you treat lackeys. Heaven forbid an ally ever think your agenda isn't viable for them, then; I'm sure the world would end.
[/quote]

Frankly, I don't see what's so shocking about any of this. Xiphosis is one of the few people on Planet Bob who's modus operandi has been essentially constant for the entirety of his years here, and no matter how many baww threads come up over the years about some of the stunts he pulls, a lot of people are still magically shocked when they read about it.

[KCToker]

[quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1293329695' post='2553906']
Frankly, I don't see what's so shocking about any of this. Xiphosis is one of the few people on Planet Bob who's modus operandi has been essentially constant for the entirety of his years here, and no matter how many baww threads come up over the years about some of the stunts he pulls, a lot of people are still magically shocked when they read about it.
[/quote]
Kinda like how some people are still magically shocked whenever they see you in peace mode or bailing on an ally during a war, right?

[Deatvert]

[quote name='KCToker' timestamp='1293330732' post='2553916']
Kinda like how some people are still magically shocked whenever they see you in peace mode or bailing on an ally during a war, right?
[/quote]
Because it's obviously impossible for anyone in this world to change, which is why we keep fighting the same war over and over.

[Trouble Terrible]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293104768' post='2551499']Sardonic, you don't want your FA dictated to you? Then cancel all your treaties, leave your bloc, and don't sign any protectorate agreements because the moment something happens with those you sign with your FA is in effect being dictated to by others.[/quote]

Perhaps this is the reality that "The United States" of CN is faced with; here in our own corner we view our allies not as superiors but as brothers, and those relationships are marked by a mutual respect and understanding whereby we work with one another and not to the exclusion of one another. The very idea of somehow "dictating" someone's foreign affairs is repugnant to us - as repulsive as the idea of an ally directing our own direction. I now understand your bitterness towards GOONS, PB, MK et al.. What a miserable existence you must have.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Avenger' timestamp='1293332312' post='2553927']
Because it's obviously impossible for anyone in this world to change, which is why we keep fighting the same war over and over.
[/quote]

I don't think you caught KC's meaning there towards Boris, there.

[KCToker]

[quote name='Avenger' timestamp='1293332312' post='2553927']
Because it's obviously impossible for anyone in this world to change, which is why we keep fighting the same war over and over.
[/quote]
If someone has spent every Friday for the last 5 years going to the movies, what is going to surprise you more: Him going to the movies next Friday, or him going to a bar instead?

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Trouble Terrible' timestamp='1293333408' post='2553942']
Perhaps this is the reality that "The United States" of CN is faced with; here in our own corner we view our allies not as superiors but as brothers, and those relationships are marked by a mutual respect and understanding whereby we work with one another and not to the exclusion of one another. The very idea of somehow "dictating" someone's foreign affairs is repugnant to us - as repulsive as the idea of an ally directing our own direction. I now understand your bitterness towards GOONS, PB, MK et al.. What a miserable existence you must have.
[/quote]
My existence is great, loving every minute of it and it will only get better.

You can't read, sad really. In effect by signing treaties, events that occur with allies and allies of allies dictate what an alliance's foreign policy will be. The simple solution to not having any outside events influencing an alliance is by being completely neutral. Do you understand that concept? Maybe grab a dictionary if you don't understand simple words.

[Kzoppistan]

ARGH, I'm drunk and I'm gonna slander somebody!

You! With the face! Yes, you! You smell!

And as for the treaty cancellation, it seems reasonable that some people's support is conditional. Now, I think Xiph's dislike for TOP is purely sour grapes, but if he wants to keep his closer allies from being more closely involved with his perceived enemy, that's his prerogative. While I think it's a bit silly to got straight to a cancellation on a close ally instead perhaps more, shall we say, circumspect approach, at least he's clear about who his friends and enemies are.

Now I'm off. Tell Santa to drop my coal and/or gifts off at the local pub! ARGH!

Edited December 26, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Leigon' timestamp='1293312398' post='2553768']
Saying that we're trying to block the whole ex-hegemony is ridiculous. There are various alliances I could imagine us allying from that side. TOP just isn't among them.
[/quote]
And who IS among them, exactly?

[kentsfield]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1293337051' post='2554014']
And who IS among them, exactly?
[/quote]
Not your corpse of an alliance.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1293337051' post='2554014']
And who IS among them, exactly?
[/quote]

Why you are!

[mrcalkin]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293334088' post='2553954']
My existence is great, loving every minute of it and it will only get better.

You can't read, sad really. In effect by signing treaties, events that occur with allies and allies of allies dictate what an alliance's foreign policy will be. The simple solution to not having any outside events influencing an alliance is by being completely neutral. Do you understand that concept? Maybe grab a dictionary if you don't understand simple words.
[/quote]

Influencing and dictating are two different things but I don't assume you will be able to understand that.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='kentsfield' timestamp='1293337447' post='2554032']
Not your corpse of an alliance.
[/quote]
Cute. Rather drives home my point, I'd say.

I'd say good luck on your attempted...whatever you're attempting. But it would be dishonest, so I'll just watch and enjoy the show.

[EgoFreaky]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1293232540' post='2552992']
When IRON refused to attack Superfriends in defense of NSO, then their MDP partner, out of respect for your feelings.

Maybe it wasn't something you demanded (actually I doubt it was) but it doesn't matter, the effect is the same. Superfriends members are free to attack IRON's MDP partners secure in the knowledge that IRON will not attack them in return.


Then why didn't you defend NSO against Fark? The reason given to me was the R&R treaty, this isn't something I'm making up.
[/quote]


We never asked IRON not to hit an ally of ours, would be kinda lame seeing we just hit one of them. Nor would we have been insulted if they ha. I'm pretty sure they hit one of our allies during karma

We have a non chaining MDP and yeah sadly we have been forced to use that non chaining clause way more often then we would like. We have that treaty with IRON though, not with heir allies and they don't have it with ours. We hit NSO in defense of FOK (another ally of ours) that NSO also had a treaty with IRON was sad but not our main concern at that point, that was defending our ally and not look for reasons for not having to defend them.

As for why you where led to believe the R&R/IRON treat was the reason.. well my best guess is that they don't owe you anything, least of all an explanation.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1293343683' post='2554161']
Influencing and dictating are two different things but I don't assume you will be able to understand that.
[/quote]
You're right, I am not able to understand that as well as Umbrella. You guys fully understand the difference. You are dictated to and you influence nothing.

[Monster]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1293232540' post='2552992']
When IRON refused to attack Superfriends in defense of NSO, then their MDP partner, out of respect for your feelings.

Maybe it wasn't something you demanded (actually I doubt it was) but it doesn't matter, the effect is the same. Superfriends members are free to attack IRON's MDP partners secure in the knowledge that IRON will not attack them in return.


Then why didn't you defend NSO against Fark? The reason given to me was the R&R treaty, this isn't something I'm making up.
[/quote]


Are you certain that was the case? I was under the impression that the reason IRON did not go in on SF or any NSO attackers was for strategic considerations.

[Ogedei Khan]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1293351069' post='2554263']
Are you certain that was the case? I was under the impression that the reason IRON did not go in on SF or any NSO attackers was for strategic considerations.
[/quote]
It was due to strategic considerations. We had plenty of discussions between the membership and the Council regarding the pre-emptive hit and the R&R treaty was never brought up as a reason. Now, I'm just an ordinary member but not hitting Fark to avoid offending R&R and instead taking a huge risk like pre-empting C&G (and taking TOP along with us) seems utterly ridiculous, especially since R&R was already at war with our allies in NSO. I can't imagine any of our leaders being that stupid. From what I have heard, we didn't hit Fark because they were very well connected and we'd end up fighting both SF and C&G. Also, ( I am not completely sure about this) MHA supposedly promised to stay neutral if Fark was not directly hit, though they later pissed on their word and jumped on us anyway.

[Monster]

[quote name='Ogedei Khan' timestamp='1293352004' post='2554265']
It was due to strategic considerations. We had plenty of discussions between the membership and the Council regarding the pre-emptive hit and the R&R treaty was never brought up as a reason. Now, I'm just an ordinary member but not hitting Fark to avoid offending R&R and instead taking a huge risk like pre-empting C&G (and taking TOP along with us) seems utterly ridiculous, especially since R&R was already at war with our allies in NSO. I can't imagine any of our leaders being that stupid. From what I have heard, we didn't hit Fark because they were very well connected and we'd end up fighting both SF and C&G.
[/quote]

I knew this to be the case, but Haflinger kept spouting that line(this is not the first tim he's dragged it out) and I wanted to see if he would defend it when I could get evidence to prove his assertion false.