Alterego Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Fron The Animal House Accords [quote]Each signatory which has outside treaties agrees that those treaties will not chain to PB, [b]and that PB will not chain to any outside treaty[/b]. Should a signatory find itself obligated to act [/quote] Its clear they use and abuse their own rules as they see fit. A sham bloc with sham rules. Hegemony 101 the ends justify the means even if you have to stomp all over your own creations integrity. We already know its a sham CB here are the sham DoWs. Some SF alliances are apparently bound to defend PB despite PBs own rules being against it. Today SF ceases to be an independent bloc and is just a PB drone. [quote name='LincolnC' timestamp='1295497873' post='2584861'] Today, R&R is pleased to announce we still have friends in CN. The Great C.S. Lewis once said; [i]“Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another, 'What! You too? I thought I was the only one!”[/i] Today we are here to declare on an alliance we fought several times before, an alliance that has left us with a bad taste in our mouth. During karma they attacked us and got of easily, During Bi-Polar they attacked us and escaped from our payback. Today we will finish the job that started so long ago. Let it be known that third time is STILL the charm! R&R hereby declares war on UPN and USN along side our friends in CMEA in defense of iFOK. [/quote] [quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1295498124' post='2584901'] Pursuant to the Superfriends treaty, GOD hereby declares on UPN in support of R&R. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Oh just shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Treaty lawyering will surely be the key factor in turning the tide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1295522030' post='2586102'] Oh just shut up. [/quote] What he said. I'm sick of every !@#$@#$ war, people arguing semantics over treaties. Look, face the !@#$@#$ facts, alliances are going to choose a side and do whatever they can to get in on it, be it go in over an oA clause, go in because they're such 'great friends' but have no treaty or whatever other crap they feel like making up to justify their entry into the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 It's their treaties, they can do whatever the hell they want. Just shut up and enjoy the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) You know, the moment I saw the title, I knew who the OP was. EDIT: Also the whole not chaining into PB is a REALLY stupid clause. It's one that will never work and will never actually be used. Whoever wrote it is a complete idiot/liar. Edited January 20, 2011 by Earogema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Takku Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Some delicious tears here. Keep bawwing as much as you want, it's not going to change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 the dutch wrote it, it was a linguistic error Oh yeah and shut the hell up, alterego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Luckily your alliance isn't a drone and won't fall in line with the rest of the PB drones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Generally speaking, non-chaining clauses make a MDP an ODP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Alterego, if you ever wonder about the moment you should stop, it was a year ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lezrahi Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) That clause does not prevent other alliances from coming to the defence of Pandora's Box should they see fit. Such alliances are not bound by the Animal House Accords due to their status as non-signatories. It is more or less an assertion on our part that we do not hold other alliances accountable for any instances in which they refrain from coming to our aid on account of treaty chaining. If you have a problem with what decisions the SuperFriends make, then I suggest that you speak to the SuperFriends. They are a sovereign, independent bloc with minds of their own and we are not responsible for their actions.* [size="1"]*Not that we don't appreciate their help, of course.[/size] Edited January 20, 2011 by Lezrahi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 People can do whatever the $%&@ they want to. Wording doesn't mean jack !@#$. [img]http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/089/901/original/4c141058_c006_7f06.gif?1293322425[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295521416' post='2586093'] Today SF ceases to be an independent bloc and is just a PB drone. [/quote] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97369&st=0"]Not quite.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Everyone not on my side of the war are immoral and big meanie heads ;____; Edited January 20, 2011 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1295522030' post='2586102'] Oh just shut up. [/quote] MK gov quality, wow. You really are great and lord high communicator no less [quote name='Mayzie' timestamp='1295522195' post='2586104'] What he said. I'm sick of every !@#$@#$ war, people arguing semantics over treaties. Look, face the !@#$@#$ facts, alliances are going to choose a side and do whatever they can to get in on it, be it go in over an oA clause, go in because they're such 'great friends' but have no treaty or whatever other crap they feel like making up to justify their entry into the war. [/quote] [ooc]its called playing the game[ooc] [quote name='Takku' timestamp='1295522911' post='2586112'] Some delicious tears here. Keep bawwing as much as you want, it's not going to change anything. [/quote] Tears of boredom maybe [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1295523495' post='2586119'] Alterego, if you ever wonder about the moment you should stop, it was a year ago. [/quote] I never wonder [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1295524346' post='2586133'] People can do whatever the $%&@ they want to. Wording doesn't mean jack !@#$. [img]http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/089/901/original/4c141058_c006_7f06.gif?1293322425[/img] [/quote] why bother writing a treaty then unveiling it to a hundred mindless hails if it doesnt mean anything? Hypocrisy [quote name='Lezrahi' timestamp='1295523862' post='2586126'] That clause does not prevent other alliances from coming to the defence of Pandora's Box should they see fit. Such alliances are not bound by the Animal House Accords due to their status as non-signatories. It is more or less an assertion on our part that we do not hold other alliances accountable for any instances in which they refrain from coming to our aid on account of treaty chaining. If you have a problem with what decisions the SuperFriends make, then I suggest that you speak to the SuperFriends. They are a sovereign, independent bloc with minds of their own and we are not responsible for their actions.* [size="1"]*Not that we don't appreciate their help, of course.[/size] [/quote] A genuine answer, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295527761' post='2586180']why bother writing a treaty then unveiling it to a hundred mindless hails if it doesnt mean anything? Hypocrisy[/quote] That is not what hypocrisy means. You do not know what hypocrisy means. You should not use words whose meanings you are unfamiliar with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Let's put the whole article in here shall we? Because you left out the context, which is pretty silly to say the least. [quote] Article 4 An attack on one signatory is an attack on all members of the bloc. If one signatory comes under attack, all other signatories will commit full military, financial, and political support in a timely manner. If a signatory wants to initiate aggressive action, the other signatories are encouraged but not obligated to provide military and financial assistance. Any plans to use military force will be communicated with other signatories in a timely manner. Each signatory which has outside treaties agrees that those treaties will not chain to PB, and that PB will not chain to any outside treaty. Should a signatory find itself obligated to act because of an outside treaty, a vote will take place determining PB's course of action. The window for voting concerning war is 24 hours. Votes not cast within this time-frame are considered nulled. Should the vote pass with 66% in favor, defense becomes mandatory for each signatory. Should the vote fail with less than 66% in favor, defense becomes voluntary for each signatory. Offense is always voluntary and a vote is not required. [/quote] This clause here determines the course of action for the bloc in a given situation, so that is whether or not PB will act as one in a war where one signatory needs to defend a third party. It [b]does not[/b] (nor is it able to) decide what non-signatories do. I'm not so sure what is so hard to understand about such a non-chaining clause? All what it does, is making the mandatory defense as stipulated in the first part of Article 4 optional for other bloc members should they find themselves in a situation as specified in non-chaining clause. Now, should that happen, PB has to decide whether or not they will roll as one, and this is determined by the result of a voting process. Seriously, that wasn't so hard, was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 It's a pretty straightforward clause; it allows Pandora's Box to split in the event of a war that starts outside PB. This is not that war. In fact given last night, one could say that Superfriends are honouring the spirit of the clause. Much dumber is PB's intelligence supremacy clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander The Second Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1295522174' post='2586103'] Treaty lawyering will surely be the key factor in turning the tide. [/quote] No but having all these references will come in handy I am sure... last alliance to abuse it's position of power greatly had to pay how much reps when they were taken down again? So keeping a nice detailed log of any "potential" shenanigans is something pretty much any intelligent player does... both sides included. Edited January 20, 2011 by Alexander The Second Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Please just stop posting. No one cares what you have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alexander The Second' timestamp='1295529440' post='2586213']No but having all these references will come in handy I am sure... last alliance to abuse it's position of power greatly had to pay how much reps when they were taken down again?[/quote] Dude really? Wasn't this war supposed to be the long foretold ~Karma 2.0~? Face it, your side is objectively stupider and worse at organising yourselves than ours is. You will never accomplish or amount to anything other than being jokes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote]I'm sick of every !@#$@#$ war, people arguing semantics over treaties. Look, face the !@#$@#$ facts, alliances are going to choose a side and do whatever they can to get in on it, be it go in over an oA clause, go in because they're such 'great friends' but have no treaty or whatever other crap they feel like making up to justify their entry into the war. [/quote] Pretty much what he said ^^ Each to their own. If RnR and GOD felt they needed to do this, then fair enough. Lets just get on with it. That being said, flaming the poster is also pointless... It was posted to generate a bit of debate and banter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikita Ilyich Lenin Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 im so glad that i didn't even read the OP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwuss Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I bet Sardonic wrote that part. Sardonic 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.