Kevanovia Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Why do I find myself agreeing with Alterego? I'm surprised there isn't more positive feedback to the points he addressed. If you don't intend on following through a treaty, than don't sign it. On the otherhand, I'm not so much against someone going to war with a non-chaining treaty, I have a bigger problem with people not going to war even if they have a chaining treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1295639751' post='2589439'] Why do I find myself agreeing with Alterego? I'm surprised there isn't more positive feedback to the points he addressed. If you don't intend on following through a treaty, than don't sign it. On the otherhand, I'm not so much against someone going to war with a non-chaining treaty, I have a bigger problem with people not going to war even if they have a chaining treaty. [/quote] Except that has nothing to do with the OP, as it doesn't relate to any particulars in PB's charter, and isn't limited to either side of this conflict. Not to mention it's a terrible complaint during large wars such as this, as holding off declarations can be a very important part of strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexomega Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I just found it funny that GOD declared in support of RnR, it's like they tried so hard to not be tied to PB but they did anyway so whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktarthan Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Dexomega' timestamp='1295652932' post='2589712'] I just found it funny that GOD declared in support of RnR, it's like they tried so hard to not be tied to PB but they did anyway so whatever. [/quote] I don't see how this makes sense. GOD is still MADP'd to VE, and their cancellation with GOONS wasn't about PB at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='ktarthan' timestamp='1295654380' post='2589756'] I don't see how this makes sense. GOD is still MADP'd to VE, and their cancellation with GOONS wasn't about PB at all. [/quote] It's looking more and more like it was about the word "smokescreen" actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 It's almost as if you just ignored the RoK DoW in support of Polar, or did we tell them to do that as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 This thread was pretty bad, and I like criticizing PB. Just saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthkill Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Mr. Alterego. What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may Admin have mercy on your soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealthkill Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 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). [/quote] We were all too shocked by UPN actually getting involved in a war to notice xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 There's nothing to stop people from attacking someone in a war if they want to, unless they specifically say that they won't, like a declaration of neutrality or a clause that prevents re-entry into a war. That's why most alliances sign MDoAPs instead of MDPs. There's practically no difference, except in displaying the spirit of the treaty. An MDP tends to mean that they'll protect each other from aggressors, but not fight a war for the other, while MDoAPs often mean that they strongly support each other and believe in what the other plans to do. Right now, someone who's not on any side of the web, like Basketball Ninjas, can attack whichever side they believe in. It's only an issue if one person doesn't honor a MA or MD level treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Corrupt Teacher Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1295529249' post='2586211'] 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] [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1295545813' post='2586681'] 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] Its happened Alterego has finally reached such high levels of stupidity that even HoT and Haflinger are pretty much telling him he's an idiot. Also seriously SF a PB puppet bloc? I mean its already been pointed out but Rok is fighting for Polar dude so...just shut up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1295732992' post='2592376'] Its happened Alterego has finally reached such high levels of stupidity that even HoT and Haflinger are pretty much telling him he's an idiot. Also seriously SF a PB puppet bloc? I mean its already been pointed out but Rok is fighting for Polar dude so...just shut up? [/quote] I've been arguing with Alterego for as long as I can remember. The occasions when we've agreed are so rare as to be nearly nonexistent. Don't confuse my support for BAPS, which is based on my knowledge of its leadership, with a support for Alterego's ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Who gives a damn. If it falls under non-chaining even, then its a war run on oA clauses. So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 [quote name='Dexomega' timestamp='1295652932' post='2589712'] I just found it funny that GOD declared in support of RnR, it's like they tried so hard to not be tied to PB but they did anyway so whatever. [/quote] They didn't want to be tied to TOP, not PB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1295739577' post='2592571'] They didn't want to be tied to TOP, not PB. [/quote] <Insert TOP PB sig> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1295639751' post='2589439'] Why do I find myself agreeing with Alterego? I'm surprised there isn't more positive feedback to the points he addressed. If you don't intend on following through a treaty, than don't sign it. On the otherhand, I'm not so much against someone going to war with a non-chaining treaty, I have a bigger problem with people not going to war even if they have a chaining treaty. [/quote] How has the treaty not been followed through on? Do you want us to be declaring as a bloc on each target we have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted January 23, 2011 Report Share Posted January 23, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1295803333' post='2593999'] How has the treaty not been followed through on? Do you want us to be declaring as a bloc on each target we have? [/quote] If requested upon by the alliance being attacked 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.