KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1297101971' post='2624208'] 8 would be exaggerating a bit don;t you think? Seeing they were informed before hand the moment !@#$ hit the roof it's not really being ignored. Another important fact is they are non-chaining so we are well within our legal rights to do so and no where does it say using the non-chaining clause means we are ignoring treaties. So continue your whining, we've stated our reasons and you still find fault no way to appease you guys and we could care less really. Our allies also know I believe that the sides they are defending want us in only to burn, so connect the dots and maybe you would get a clearer picture :3 [/quote] I can repeat the 8 alliances that you have MDP+ treaties with that you have so far not responded to at all: Olympus, MCXA, Molon Labe, Nordreich, Exodus, Dark Templar, BTA, and Nebula-X. All have entered the war at some point (all on the same side, to be sure), and at least some of them requested assistance and I'm pretty sure all of them would've appreciated assistance (some like NoR never were countered, for instance, and some have made peace). It doesn't matter if you told them before hand "we're such big babies that we'll become UPN to stay out of this war!" and they understand and accept that, you're still disregarding 8 treaties. I'm sure you're going to enjoy the next year defending these actions, since once the dust settles, everyone will laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297102401' post='2624223'] Why is it so hard to understand the concept of non-chaining? It's because people are lacking of cognitive fitness either by trait, or by communications strategy, and do not care or understand what treaties in question say. That's why. [/quote] You try way too hard to make points and straw-men which do not pertain at all to any argument anyone makes. Then you try to bash someone's 'cognitive fitness' without realizing the ungodly irony in it all. You and goldielax make quite a pairing, Sol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Simple fact, none asked for assistance. Since also they chained in their treaties, our assistance was more or less optional. Edited February 7, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1297103094' post='2624253'] Simple fact, none asked for assistance. Since also they chained in their treaties, our assistance was more or less optional. [/quote] orly? [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1297025362' post='2622589'] I would like to think MCXA made it pretty obvious that we could really use your help while taking three times our NS. [/quote] lol. you guys are funny. in the same thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Nope they didn't ask for assistance using the Mutual Defense Clause * They pretty much knew what they were getting into and knew it would be without us, they still did ( all our allies so far) and we respect that like they respect our position. Let's leave it at that shall we? Edit: Less Vague Edited February 8, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297103033' post='2624249'] You try way too hard to make points and straw-men which do not pertain at all to any argument anyone makes. Then you try to bash someone's 'cognitive fitness' without realizing the ungodly irony in it all. You and goldielax make quite a pairing, Sol. [/quote] Not bashing. Coaching. These tearstorms about non-chaining treaties would had been more appropriate at the time of them being signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297103583' post='2624265'] Not bashing. Coaching. These tearstorms about non-chaining treaties would had been more appropriate at the time of them being signed. [/quote] Non-chaining treaties are understandable, but that's not what this is about (well, it IS their poor excuse to run from their allies). It's about disregarding 8 non-chaining treaties and somehow maintaining some semblance of dignity after a year of bashing UPN for doing something almost the same (At least UPN had ODN on the other side..). But don't worry Val, after the war's over, all these VE and Umbrella 'defenders' will probably reverse into the derision that's expected, akin to how they derided UPN after BiPolar. Gosh, this is déjà vu all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297104863' post='2624297'] Non-chaining treaties are understandable, but that's not what this is about (well, it IS their poor excuse to run from their allies). It's about disregarding 8 non-chaining treaties and somehow maintaining some semblance of dignity after a year of bashing UPN for doing something almost the same (At least UPN had ODN on the other side..). But don't worry Val, after the war's over, all these VE and Umbrella 'defenders' will probably reverse into the derision that's expected, akin to how they derided UPN after BiPolar. Gosh, this is déjà vu all over again. [/quote] In what way did we disregard these treaties, still didn't explain that :3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297104863' post='2624297'] Non-chaining treaties are understandable, but that's not what this is about (well, it IS their poor excuse to run from their allies). It's about disregarding 8 non-chaining treaties and somehow maintaining some semblance of dignity after a year of bashing UPN for doing something almost the same (At least UPN had ODN on the other side..). [/quote] I only want to point out that the number of non-chaining treaties doesn't matter if the reason for that clause being activated is the same. Carry on. [sub]Oh, and congrats to those elected. [/sub] Edited February 7, 2011 by Tromp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297104863' post='2624297'] Non-chaining treaties are understandable, but that's not what this is about (well, it IS their poor excuse to run from their allies). It's about disregarding 8 non-chaining treaties and somehow maintaining some semblance of dignity after a year of bashing UPN for doing something almost the same (At least UPN had ODN on the other side..). But don't worry Val, after the war's over, all these VE and Umbrella 'defenders' will probably reverse into the derision that's expected, akin to how they derided UPN after BiPolar. Gosh, this is déjà vu all over again. [/quote]I have never derided anyone for applying a written non-chaining clause, in a situation where they would otherwise be forced to fight for a cause, or alliance, they consider retarded. Val is horrible for not breaking treaties, not once, not twise, but eight times. And that's almost as horrible as stealing 40 cakes with a mad smile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1297105018' post='2624301'] In what way did we disregard these treaties, still didn't explain that :3 [/quote] By not assisting your allies in war, typically the core purpose of having MDP+ treaties in the first place. But you can make a good point, if you're willing to opt-out of 8 MDP+ treaties, why not just go paperless and save yourself the trouble of pulling a UPN when you want to run from war? Or, you can downgrade those 8 treaties to ODPs, since that's ultimately what they are to you. I'm sure you have plenty of decent members remaining that are upset with you leaving 8 allies behind to burn. Not all of you are as spineless as your top leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297106043' post='2624319'] By not assisting your allies in war, typically the core purpose of having MDP+ treaties in the first place. But you can make a good point, if you're willing to opt-out of 8 MDP+ treaties, why not just go paperless and save yourself the trouble of pulling a UPN when you want to run from war? Or, you can downgrade those 8 treaties to ODPs, since that's ultimately what they are to you. I'm sure you have plenty of decent members remaining that are upset with you leaving 8 allies behind to burn. Not all of you are as spineless as your top leadership. [/quote] Yes we want to run from a war. Exactly, that just shows how much you know about us. PS: Nothing really. On the question regarding treaties, they aren't ODP's. Guess you really don't understand how non-chaining treaties work do you? Our allies chained in other treaties, and we didn't want to enter. Since well our treaty states we don't need if it's chained then it's well within our rights. You have a problem with that, too bad. Edited February 7, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297102401' post='2624223'] Why is it so hard to understand the concept of non-chaining? It's because people are lacking of cognitive fitness either by trait, or by communications strategy, and do not care or understand what treaties in question say. That's why. [/quote] Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NLights Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Congratulations to the elected - good luck in the future Valhalla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I can speak for Olympus in telling you that Valhalla's treaty with us has in no way been brought into play, so please do not bash our allies on our account, we are more than capable ourselves, [b]Should[/b] the need arise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1297106304' post='2624329'] Yes we want to run from a war. Exactly, that just shows how much you know about us. PS: Nothing really. On the question regarding treaties, they aren't ODP's. Guess you really don't understand how non-chaining treaties work do you? [/quote] You're right, I thought I knew better of you. I thought you had to dignity to follow at least [i]one[/i] of your allies to battle, after 8 had gone into the fray, chaining or non-chaining. At least we can wipe some generic things like 'Valhalla is a warrior alliance' or 'Valhalla defends its allies' off the table, since both are false and a complete joke. p.s. I love all these VE and FOK 'important persons' coming to back you guys up on the virtues of ignoring 8 (non-chaining) MDP+ treaties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Order tears are the best tears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297107070' post='2624348'] You're right, I thought I knew better of you. I thought you had to dignity to follow at least [i]one[/i] of your allies to battle, after 8 had gone into the fray, chaining or non-chaining. At least we can wipe some generic things like 'Valhalla is a warrior alliance' or 'Valhalla defends its allies' off the table, since both are false and a complete joke. p.s. I love all these VE and FOK 'important persons' coming to back you guys up on the virtues of ignoring 8 (non-chaining) MDP+ treaties [/quote] Lol if you say so. Since well those things came up I believe from our opponents reports :3 ps: None of the Mutual Defense clauses have been activated. We aren't interested in activating oA either. Keep grasping Edited February 7, 2011 by Sir Keshav IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solaris Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297107070' post='2624348'] p.s. I love all these VE and FOK 'important persons' coming to back you guys up on the virtues of ignoring 8 (non-chaining) MDP+ treaties [/quote] If anyone of my allies would want to fight for an order, or cause, that I would find too retarded or inappropriate to fight for, I'd sure hope there was a non-chaining clause in that treaty. That's about the degree of awesome here. This is solidarity of rationality, on one single issue, not sympathy for Valhalla per se. Edited February 7, 2011 by Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Congrats to the new gov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Congrats to one sexy ass government. Keshy Bud RePePePePePePePePe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1297101619' post='2624204'] What makes what you're doing any better than what UPN did a year ago? Did UPN have any obligation to fight on behalf of IRON or TOP? (No, they actually had a direct obligation to defend ODN against them). Most of the participants in this war has no direct link to the Orders, and I really don't care about your feelings being hurt by NPO. I'm just saying you've just pulled a UPN (or worse) after spending the last year whining and !@#$%*ing about how UPN doesn't defend its allies, now you go around and do the exact same. And it's just not one or two treaties, we're now up to [b]8 treaties being ignored by Valhalla[/b]. This is a circus you're running, and we're not exactly laughing with you. [/quote] Im pretty sure the treaty with Invicta was a mdap or it was CHAINING. So there is the difference. Edited February 7, 2011 by Buds The Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1297111453' post='2624443'] Im pretty sure the treaty with Invicta was a mdap or it was CHAINING. So there is the difference. [/quote] Chaining, MDAP, surpremacy clause, you name it; for all intents and purposes they were joined at the hip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1297111453' post='2624443'] Im pretty sure the treaty with Invicta was a mdap or it was CHAINING. So there is the difference. [/quote] True, but ODN was also directly attacked by TOP+co. which would directly activate that defensive clause. So really if this chained out correctly, UPN and Invicta should've been fighting with C&G. Even if it were a non-chaining MDoAP as you guys are fond of, i'm quite positive that UPN would've faced the exact same ridicule that they ended up receiving - ultimately UPN wussed out in following [i]any[/i] treaties with [i]any[/i] of its allies. Sounds... so... similar Actually, at least UPN fought RnR that war, if only briefly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Valhalla doesn't enters loosing wars despite being released of all obligations with no guilt-strings attached, Bi-Polar doesnt exists. 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.