Cyber Nationz Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) [center][IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/4pyx08.png[/IMG][img]http://oi53.tinypic.com/w8s0ig.jpg[/img][/center] This masterpiece combined together is known as A.R.T. I present to you an Anti Raid Treaty between Nebula-X and Red Rum. [b] ART - Anti Raid Treaty[/b] Article 1: Both alliances are sovereign, and neither alliance will show any signs of aggression or perform any acts of sabotage on each other. Article 2: Both signatories agree to work with each other and help build each others economy. Article 3: If either alliance is rogued upon, or tech raided by a foreign party, the other alliance is required to come to their assistance in every way possible. Article 4: Article 3 only applies to valid Tech Raids. This treaty is in no way, shape, or form a defense pact against legitimate aggression. Article 5: This treaty can be canceled at any time by either signatory, as long as there are no financial dues from either party. [b] Signatures from Nebula-X[/b] Emperor- Sonic Regent- Ludacrism2 Chancellor of Internal Affairs- Blood Ruler Chancellor of Foreign Affairs- Rheebrosinc Chancellor of Commerce- StreetHawk Chancellor of Defense- Alex0827a [b] Signatures from Red Rum[/b] King- Terra Hawk Chancellor- Fiercesob tl;dr NX and Red Rum will be helping each other out when dealing with Tech Raiders. Edited January 5, 2011 by Cyber Nationz Quote
Jgoods45 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote]Article 3: If either alliance is [b]rouged[/b] upon, or tech raided by a foreign party, the other alliance is required to come to their assistance in every way possible.[/quote] Needs to be fixed. Other then that... Good luck. Quote
Ludacrism2 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 We don't know what you're talking about lol Quote
Cyber Nationz Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1294206958' post='2564063'] Needs to be fixed. Other then that... Good luck. [/quote] Binocular eyes I see, Perhaps I was rehearsing my Francais Quote
Keve69 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Cyber Nationz' timestamp='1294207065' post='2564074'] Binocular eyes I see, Perhaps I was rehearsing my Francais [/quote] Dear sir, En Français, the word 'rouge' never has 'd' at the end. Thanks. Quote
Groucho Marx Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 So this is a very restricted MDP with an econ-clause attached to it? Well, uh, good luck with that. Quote
Cyber Nationz Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1294208487' post='2564124'] So this is a very restricted MDP with an econ-clause attached to it? Well, uh, good luck with that. [/quote] Umm, more of a unity against your kind Quote
Groucho Marx Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Cyber Nationz' timestamp='1294210970' post='2564181'] Umm, more of a unity against your kind [/quote] Wouldn't that have been addressed better if you had just signed an all-encompassing MDP/Protectorate (like what everybody else signs?) instead of trying to create a new kind of treaty that won't see any action or serve any real purpose? Besides, how would my "kind" be able to raid you anyway? Your alliance and Red Rum already meet the criteria for being recognized as a legitimate alliance by most that allow raiding. So, what's the point to signing this watered down MDP? If we wanted to get around it, all I'd have to do is declare war on Red Rum as an alliance and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Quote
Golan 1st Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I am not sure what "legitimate aggression" means (yeah, I know what you mean. I just disagree with your definition). Other than that, congratulations to both alliances Quote
Cyber Nationz Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1294211757' post='2564190'] Wouldn't that have been addressed better if you had just signed an all-encompassing MDP/Protectorate (like what everybody else signs?) instead of trying to create a new kind of treaty that won't see any action or serve any real purpose? Besides, how would my "kind" be able to raid you anyway? Your alliance and Red Rum already meet the criteria for being recognized as a legitimate alliance by most that allow raiding. So, what's the point to signing this watered down MDP? If we wanted to get around it, all I'd have to do is declare war on Red Rum as an alliance and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. [/quote] Damn marx, u think too much. Chill out. Red rum are some cool peeps, Who have the liberty to take their alliance to w/e path they deem better. We just make sure, Nobody raids them while they explore the world of Bob. We dont see them as noobs. We give them equal respect as we would give ur alliance. yes CN has a culture of giving new alliances protectorate agreements with numerous restrictions. And MDP carries a far more value and responsibility. A.R.T is a just a bridge among them. help the little people get on their feet, w/o impacting their views about BoB. Seriously What is the biggest threat to small new alliances:- lousy raiders. Now unfortunately we cant get rid of them, so we have to improvise. EDIT- To answer ur question. Read again. Neither party is obligated to defend against "legitimate aggression" If either party is attacked due to a valid CB then there is "Legitimate aggression" For example: poaching members, spying, any stupid things that will get you attacked, etc now If Either party is randomly attacked w/o cause or provocation, and has nothing to do with it. The CB was invalid with sufficient evidence. Then it is "illegitimate aggression" For example: tech raids, Boredom attacks, bullying and so on. Quote
Beauty Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I like this treaty, You guys seem pretty awesome o/ Nebula-X o/ Red Rum Quote
King MyLife Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 This document fails on all levels Quote
The Pansy Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 TBH you'd be better protecting Red Rum, as by definition of this treaty they still fit the raiding rules of other alliances, and if you help, you are opening up a whole heap of issues. I am pretty sure this will just make people test your resolve Quote
White Chocolate Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Two alliances trying something new on Planet Bob in terms of treaties? Wow, creative thinking. I can hail that! Hail Nebula-X! Hail Red Rum! Anyway, get's the point across as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and Article 3 seems to be the one getting some attention. But I also see a Peace and Aid Treaty in this too which has value in itself. Edited January 5, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote
Ninja Colt Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 So as long as we post a declaration of war, we could tech raid them basically? Quote
DarkEra97 Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 There must not have been a lot of thought put into this. All this does is invite alliances to attack them for teh lulz and you make it clear that you are not actually obligated to help them. Quote
Groucho Marx Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Cyber Nationz' timestamp='1294218661' post='2564257'] <words> [/quote] I am very chill. Chill as a cucumber. Thank you. Your definition of "legitimate" aggression could lead to some major problems, that's already been brought up. I don't really see the need to improvise when the traditional means of protection have been effective enough over the years. That said I can see that you're wanting to make your stand on Raiding known. That's great, you believe in something. I just hope you realize by trying to do something innovative for the sake of doing something innovative you're leaving Red Rum in a vulnerable position and shirking any responsibility that would come with actually protecting them from harm with a poorly designed defense clause. You might want to put more thought into your anti-raiding ploys so they will actually carry some weight. [quote name='Ninja Colt' timestamp='1294252246' post='2564530'] So as long as we post a declaration of war, we could tech raid them basically? [/quote] Yes. That is exactly what the treaty says, and exactly what Sonic didn't catch before they signed the treaty. Edited January 5, 2011 by Emperor Marx Quote
General Derangement Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 I think there may have been a few misunderstandings here. Which is pretty mind-boggling, because this whole thing isn't hard to understand. The treaty says the alliances help each other if one is tech raided. We've all got that down, I think. But I failed to find the phrase "We refuse to help under any other circumstances" in this treaty. We don't HAVE to help. But we don't refuse. There's no obligation. We decide on other matters on a case-by-case basis. Which, really, is the best way to handle these things. Two sides to every story and all that. Quote
Groucho Marx Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='General Derangement' timestamp='1294258564' post='2564621'] I think there may have been a few misunderstandings here. Which is pretty mind-boggling, because this whole thing isn't hard to understand. The treaty says the alliances help each other if one is tech raided. We've all got that down, I think. But I failed to find the phrase "We refuse to help under any other circumstances" in this treaty. We don't HAVE to help. But we don't refuse. There's no obligation. We decide on other matters on a case-by-case basis. Which, really, is the best way to handle these things. Two sides to every story and all that. [/quote] No, I think that ties into my points pretty well: You've signed a watered down ODP* which is so vague that you can either decide to defend Red Rum if you felt it was in your best interests or let them burn if you felt otherwise. If this truly was meant to be some sort of anti-raiding treaty, I don't see it. Sure I see where you say this treaty is meant to defend Red Rum against raiding, but I don't see any obligation on your behalf to keep your end of the bargain. If you truly wanted to protect them you would have been better off signing a protectorate or a MDP. Instead all I see is poorly veiled lawyering out of any commitment to defend RR behind an economic pact with a dash of "Anti Raiding" gibberish thrown in. Essentially rendering this pact useless. *Sorry that I previously called this a watered down MDP, I clearly gave you more credit than I should have. Quote
Cyber Nationz Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1294259196' post='2564628'] No, I think that ties into my points pretty well: You've signed a watered down ODP* which is so vague that you can either decide to defend Red Rum if you felt it was in your best interests or let them burn if you felt otherwise. If this truly was meant to be some sort of anti-raiding treaty, I don't see it. Sure I see where you say this treaty is meant to defend Red Rum against raiding, but I don't see any obligation on your behalf to keep your end of the bargain. If you truly wanted to protect them you would have been better off signing a protectorate or a MDP. Instead all I see is poorly veiled lawyering out of any commitment to defend RR behind an economic pact with a dash of "Anti Raiding" gibberish thrown in. Essentially rendering this pact useless. *Sorry that I previously called this a watered down MDP, I clearly gave you more credit than I should have. [/quote] ODP is the most selfish defense level treaty ever made. Alliances sign it so they dont have to take responsibility for their "supposed friends" actions. And to be honest they will only defend if it is in their best interests. This treaty in no way was meant to be a MDP or a Protectorate. It is a short term thing to give Red Rum some protection while they get on their feet. [u]And Choose their direction. [/u] [i]Article 3: If either alliance is rogued upon, or tech raided by a foreign party, the other alliance is required to come to their assistance in every way possible. <---- this is Article 4: Further clarifies article 3. That this treaty is Anti Raid Treaty: A.R.T. [/i] Quote
General Derangement Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) Let me try to use simpler words here, Marx. We wanted a treaty to protect from raiding. We didn't want to be forced into every war that came along. We wanted a treaty to protect from raiding [i]and nothing else[/i]. I know you've got a wonderful counterpoint. I'm sure I would be floored by it if you didn't completely misunderstand what's going on here. But sadly enough, you don't know what you're talking about. Edited January 5, 2011 by General Derangement Quote
wickedj Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Cyber Nationz' timestamp='1294210970' post='2564181'] Umm, more of a unity against your kind [/quote] Hey, Marx, wanna go raiding? ill look for some targets..maybe even some on the Red Rum AA I hereby rate this thread D for DERP [img]http://www.picrandom.com/images/derpdesgs.jpg[/img] Edited January 5, 2011 by wickedj Quote
Ezequiel Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 Mmm.... Red Rum. Interesting development. Congratz! Ezequiel. Quote
Alex0827a Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1294211757' post='2564190'] Your alliance and Red Rum already meet the criteria for being recognized as a legitimate alliance by most that allow raiding. So, what's the point to signing this watered down MDP?[/quote] Most being the keyword here. Also, in case you haven't noticed, not everyone who does tech raids is in an alliance Quote
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.