Rocky Horror Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1295544114' post='2586623'] try to keep up [/quote]No seriously, you didn't even suggest what part of the post you were replying to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Rote Baron Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Sir Dingly Dang' timestamp='1295543830' post='2586605'] Did I miss Rok declaring on VE? I thought they merely declared on an alliance who hit their MD partner. Disappointing, in that VE would prefer to be fighting along side Rok instead of on the opposite side, but expected, as VE too would come to the defense of a MD partner who was attacked. They didn't pick sides, they activated their treaty and declined to pick sides in conflicting treaties (NpO and VE). Until I see a Rok nation hitting a VE nation, good luck on the battlefield Rok and I personally hope you review your treaties after this war and decide which ally is a better ally. If you decide it is Polaris and not VE, then so be it. But conflicting treaties suck, they put allies in untenable positions. [/quote] This. Everyone wants friends like this, so anyone bad mouthing RoK right now is nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1295537195' post='2586386'] And generally MDAPs (by their very nature) take precedence over MDoAPs was my point. [/quote] I guess I can't speak for Rok, but personally I've always held that all treaties are essentially equal. That an MDAP, is an MDP with an added aggression clause, an MDP being a NAP with a defensive clause, ect. To that end, they are contracts, and should be reasonably observed in isolation. Though I wouldn't expect an alliance to fight on both sides of a war . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1295544349' post='2586633'] I guess I can't speak for Rok, but personally I've always held that all treaties are essentially equal. That an MDAP, is an MDP with an added aggression clause, an MDP being a NAP with a defensive clause, ect. To that end, they are contracts, and should be reasonably observed in isolation. Though I wouldn't expect an alliance to fight on both sides of a war . [/quote] I've always tended to feel this way about treaties too. The only exception would be the treaties with supremacy clauses, I can't see those being executed in isolation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295544054' post='2586617'] Congratulations GOD you are just like Polar now, backstabbers, traitors and cowards who put infra before friends. [/quote] Pretty sure they just went to war for their friends. You're just mad that they aren't the friends that are on your side. If they were, you would be hailing GOD like crazy. You're so fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1295545539' post='2586668'] Pretty sure they just went to war for their friends. You're just mad that they aren't the friends that are on your side. If they were, you would be hailing GOD like crazy. You're so fake. [/quote] You should have seen what I was saying openly about UPN when they were on my side. They left our bloc based on a single comment by me. I dont pull punches because someone is an ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295545800' post='2586680'] You should have seen what I was saying openly about UPN when they were on my side. They left our bloc based on a single comment by me. I dont pull punches because someone is an ally. [/quote] Confirmed. Alterego is an equal opportunity hater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1295545885' post='2586683'] Confirmed. Alterego is an equal opportunity hater. [/quote] I also voted GOD my favourite alliance outside my own in our end of year 2010 poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295546055' post='2586689'] I also voted GOD my favourite alliance outside my own in our end of year 2010 poll. [/quote] Should've gone CoJ; we do what we say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashok Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Good to see RoK! Enjoy the battle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295545800' post='2586680'] You should have seen what I was saying openly about UPN when they were on my side. They left our bloc based on a single comment by me. I dont pull punches because someone is an ally. [/quote] Then you're obviously just bad at punching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Yukon Don' timestamp='1295536386' post='2586358'] Blocmates...you mean the ones who took our notification of intent to declare and figured out how to jump in on the other side to avoid being stuck defending us? [/quote] As someone who's been close to SF for almost my entire time in CN I want to believe that this is not the case. While I admittedly have no information on the matter besides what has transpired on the OWF, the evidence I'm seeing unfortunately suggests that what Yukon said is true. I'm sad now. GOD, you're officially not invited to my birthday party. Please prove me wrong so I can re-invite you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Sir Dingly Dang' timestamp='1295543830' post='2586605'] If you decide it is Polaris and not VE, then so be it. But conflicting treaties suck, they put allies in untenable positions. [/quote] That is outrageous. Attacking an ally's ally puts allies in untenable positions. Especially on such short notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashok Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='LegendoftheSkies' timestamp='1295546513' post='2586703'] As someone who's been close to SF for almost my entire time in CN I want to believe that this is not the case. While I admittedly have no information on the matter besides what has transpired on the OWF, the evidence I'm seeing unfortunately suggests that what Yukon said is true. I'm sad now. GOD, you're officially not invited to my birthday party. Please prove me wrong so I can re-invite you. [/quote] I figured that out to be the case. Lots of em don't like to see pixels get hurt... Lame-os if you ask me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Dingly Dang Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1295546864' post='2586717'] That is outrageous. Attacking an ally's ally puts allies in untenable positions. Especially on such short notice. [/quote] Not without the conflicting treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 This is particularly hilarious given that [i]RoK gave NpO a free pass when they declared on an ally[/i] back in Bipolar, except that time, it was without a CB at all. There is an argument that can be made that you should always follow the letter of an MDP without considering the circumstances, but RoK have already shown that they don't think that way – when it's Polar causing the confusion, anyway. Apparently the rest of us just don't match up to them. Goodbye, Ragnarok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sir Dingly Dang' timestamp='1295547854' post='2586749'] Not without the conflicting treaties. [/quote] Those treaties were not conflicting until you declared war. Unless, what you're saying is you have specifically been targeting Polaris for sometime. Edited January 20, 2011 by youwish959 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1295548112' post='2586756'] This is particularly hilarious given that [i]RoK gave NpO a free pass when they declared on an ally[/i] back in Bipolar, except that time, it was without a CB at all. There is an argument that can be made that you should always follow the letter of an MDP without considering the circumstances, but RoK have already shown that they don't think that way – when it's Polar causing the confusion, anyway. Apparently the rest of us just don't match up to them. Goodbye, Ragnarok. [/quote] Maybe they did consider the circumstances. Maybe they made the right decision based on their interpretations of the circumstances. Maybe they didn't like their friends being declared on. Maybe they didn't want to see a repeat of history. Maybe ... Just maybe ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Acca Dacca' timestamp='1295539877' post='2586463'] A nonallied alliance declared on an ally. Last time we went neutral, it was an ally on ally affair where we are asked to sit out by one side. [/quote] This was only necessary because Polar is larger than VE. It was a necessity and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 The best part of all this will be watching PB do everything in their power to not DoW on RoK and bring in RiA and Fark PB: We fight when the odds are stacked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1295536646' post='2586368'] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=441163]VE seems to be presently involved with the saboteur.[/url] [/quote] Who is the new (or returning old) leader you refer too? ((OOC; you may have noticed that's a reroll, look at nation age. Not only does VE specifically not engage in EZI, but from an RP standpoint, and this [i]is[/i] an IC forum, that is not the same person. If you wish to continue making an issue of his membership in VE I humbly suggest we take that discussion to open world RP.)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Dingly Dang Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1295548136' post='2586757'] Those treaties were not conflicting until you declared war. Unless, what your saying is you have specifically been targeting Polaris for sometime. [/quote] Actually, spying on VE is what made the treaties conflicting ; regardless, as soon as war broke out, RoK was in a tough position because of those treaties, which is what sucks. Once there was a CB, RoK was put in the middle of two allies. Had NpO declared on VE, RoK would have been mandated to defend VE. When VE attacks NpO, they are mandated to defend NpO. There only other choice is to ignore/drop a treaty, which isn't any better. And as my original post said, [b]after[/b] this war, they should look at their existing treaties, because now the one with NpO and the one with VE are in conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='berbers' timestamp='1295548503' post='2586773'] The best part of all this will be watching PB do everything in their power to not DoW on RoK and bring in RiA and Fark PB: We fight when the odds are stacked! [/quote] Right cause piling 7 alliances on ifok but not engage VE FOK or PC totally wasn't a desperate attempt to try and limit expansion of the conflict against their side. [quote name='Sir Dingly Dang' timestamp='1295548636' post='2586779'] Actually, spying on VE is what made the treaties conflicting ; regardless, as soon as war broke out, RoK was in a tough position because of those treaties, which is what sucks. Once there was a CB, RoK was put in the middle of two allies. Had NpO declared on VE, RoK would have been mandated to defend VE. When VE attacks NpO, they are mandated to defend NpO. There only other choice is to ignore/drop a treaty, which isn't any better. And as my original post said, [b]after[/b] this war, they should look at their existing treaties, because now the one with NpO and the one with VE are in conflict. [/quote] Well, I maintain that the spying was the aggressive action that required an answer by VE. In my eyes Rok chose their oA with polar over even the logical middle ground of the neutrality they initially claimed in order to leave some of their oldest and most staunch allies behind. Of course, that is the argument that pops up every war. What was the first aggressive actions? The listed CB or the actual attack. I don't expect that to ever get resolved. Edited January 20, 2011 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1295548112' post='2586756'] Goodbye, Ragnarok. [/quote] Where are they going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1295548552' post='2586775'] Who is the new (or returning old) leader you refer too? ((OOC; you may have noticed that's a reroll, look at nation age. Not only does VE specifically not engage in EZI, but from an RP standpoint, and this [i]is[/i] an IC forum, that is not the same person. If you wish to continue making an issue of his membership in VE I humbly suggest we take that discussion to open world RP.)) [/quote] He looks like the exact same person he's always been. Just went the way of the gypsies and moved Blackwoods camp to a quieter area. ((OOC: So I can go spy on you, re-roll, and be cleared of all charges? Awesome. Re-roll here I come.)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.