Cobalt Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 ITT: Alliances not in PB don't obey PB internal policy. More at 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='mrwuss' timestamp='1295538094' post='2586416'] I bet Sardonic wrote that part. Sardonic [/quote] Nope.avi If I had written the Animal House Accords it would have probably been 500 words longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295527761' post='2586180'][ooc]its called playing the game[ooc][/quote]Playing it brilliantly: I can see that you've won many people over with this thread. [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295527761' post='2586180']Tears of boredom maybe[/quote]Well, I guess you're going to have to do something about it yourself at this rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 What is this I don't even- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 This is a pretty terrible thread. I'm not sure why you posted it. There are much easier things to pick at, there is no need to argue such a convoluted, not to mention incorrect, theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1295522613' post='2586110'] 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. [/quote] [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1295539939' post='2586467'] Nope.avi If I had written the Animal House Accords it would have probably been 500 words longer. [/quote] I guess VE Chief Clowncil Impero as the author of that clause. Edited January 20, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nippy Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1295543255' post='2586582'] I guess VE Chief Clowncil Impero as the author of that clause. [/quote] You're so punny, Schatt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 If you really want to talk about treaties / charters being broken, you really ought to chat about UPN's DoW on iFOK, being that UPN's charter states they cannot attack purple alliances unless their security is at stake (and I don't see iFOK attacking them). Also, fun fact: neither Sardonic nor Impero wrote the Animal House Accords! 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='Rocky Horror' timestamp='1295540128' post='2586473'] Playing it brilliantly: I can see that you've won many people over with this thread. [/quote] Damn, I guess I scratched this off my to do list too early 14. [s]Defeat Hegemony with a single post[/s] [img]http://justinsomnia.org/images/mission-accomplished-banner.jpg[/img] Now I know how he felt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 So people entered on an optional aggression or optional defense when it is chaining clause, whoop de doo! Where was anyone claiming that defense was mandatory in this instance? This is a straw man argument, and a really, really terrible one at that. You've outdone yourself, Alterego, and not in a good way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295543715' post='2586602'] Damn, I guess I scratched this off my to do list too early 14. [s]Defeat Hegemony with a single post[/s] [img]http://justinsomnia.org/images/mission-accomplished-banner.jpg[/img] Now I know how he felt [/quote]"Rome wasn't built in a day" is not sufficient to justify doing something objectively terrible. This post wasn't part of a slow progression towards the MK axis losing credibility, it was just another reminder that you are Wrong All The Time. 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='Azaghul' timestamp='1295544185' post='2586626'] So people entered on an optional aggression or optional defense when it is chaining clause, whoop de doo! Where was anyone claiming that defense was mandatory in this instance? This is a straw man argument, and a really, really terrible one at that. You've outdone yourself, Alterego, and not in a good way. [/quote] Its a PB war PB is non chaining. Saying that GOD and R&R were in a desperate and frantic dash to get in on the potentially much larger side of the war ditching their bloc mate in the process. I can understand in the rush to save their infra and political position in Hegemony the might not have cared about what is written in treaties or charters. My bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295544499' post='2586635'] Its a PB war PB is non chaining. Saying that GOD and R&R were in a desperate and frantic dash to get in on the potentially much larger side of the war ditching their bloc mate in the process. I can understand in the rush to save their infra and political position in Hegemony the might not have cared about what is written in treaties or charters. My bad [/quote] When it comes down to it, if we have a treaty with them, chaining clause or not, we are going to honor it. We really don't give a !@#$ who [i]they[/i] are fighting for. [i]We[/i] fight for [i]them[/i]. If you don't like it...well...tough. I'm sorry we're not the side that likes to e-lawyer out of committing to itself every damn war. Edited January 20, 2011 by Hyperion321 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1295543562' post='2586595'] If you really want to talk about treaties / charters being broken, you really ought to chat about UPN's DoW on iFOK, being that UPN's charter states they cannot attack purple alliances unless their security is at stake (and I don't see iFOK attacking them). Also, fun fact: neither Sardonic nor Impero wrote the Animal House Accords! [/quote]Yes, but usually we talk about charter breaking because respectable alliances are involved, and it's supposed to be shocking. With UPN, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Congratulations Alterego you managed to shed some light on UPNs charter breach. Another small step towards crushing the purple hegemony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295544499' post='2586635'] Its a PB war PB is non chaining. Saying that GOD and R&R were in a desperate and frantic dash to get in on the potentially much larger side of the war ditching their bloc mate in the process. I can understand in the rush to save their infra and political position in Hegemony the might not have cared about what is written in treaties or charters. My bad [/quote]Let me reiterate: You are dumb. Even I cannot disagree with the other posters in this thread, that non-signatories to the PB treaty are not bound by the PB treaty. The issue of SF splitting in this war, is an issue entirely separate from the Animal House Accords. Just to spell it out super clear: The clause you cite, that 'non-chaining' clause, causes PB to become an oDoAP in any conflict other than a direct attack on one of the signatories (that isn't a defensive action by that attacking alliance). In fact, as it currently stands, GOONS and Umbrella are under no obligation to assist the other signatories in this war. It would be silly to assume they won't, but the obligation is not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I honestly don't care as long as we get a big war every now and again. Who's with me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1295544499' post='2586635'] Its a PB war PB is non chaining. Saying that GOD and R&R were in a desperate and frantic dash to get in on the potentially much larger side of the war ditching their bloc mate in the process. I can understand in the rush to save their infra and political position in Hegemony the might not have cared about what is written in treaties or charters. My bad [/quote] Please show me where they said they were bound by treaty to enter. 80-90% of the time in a major war like this people enter in on optional aggression or defense when it's chaining clauses, in order to support the side that their friends are on. You're making a big deal about nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 This is a game changer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 They have [i]paperless[/i] mutual aggression treaties. [i]Brilliant[/i] journalistic move, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I just do. not. care. I'm happy to see this war and happy about its target. I don't give two !@#$% about the text of the PB treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Damn, the OP is right. War canceled guys, everyone go home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manis B Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2208031/2208450/2212628/090303_HP_sasquatch.jpg[/img] caution: myth crossing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 All those shams and not a single ShamWow? How am I going to clean up this coke I spilled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Wasn't this very subject debated to death when PB first announced? 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.