Michael von Prussia Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1298035405' post='2637536'] They openly supported the people hitting int here on owf [/quote] Could you kindly post links to these supposed posts? [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1298035405' post='2637536'] they then proceeded to sign a treaty with an alliance that tie them directly to a power bloc opposing int [/quote] That's fair enough. [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1298035405' post='2637536'] can we please stop acting like we're shocked that it lead to int cancelling the treaty? Because that wasn't really a big surprise and it doesn't reflect bad on int no matter how much you people try to spin it. [/quote] I'm not shocked, nor do I think most of the people posting here are. When an alliance starts treating a treaty like they don't exist, one signatory or another is bound to cancel it. [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1298035405' post='2637536'] A footnote for those arguing that no SoSb gov have commented on this, I think Arrnea (sp?) would count as gov since he is their leader on paper at least. [/quote] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=stats&do=who&t=98766]Arrnea has not commented on this.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1298034173' post='2637523'] [b]Because your own government pointed the finger at SOS being to blame for the cancellation.[/b] As I said it is one thing if you would of cancelled for the reason that you wanted to preserve your foreign policy, did not want that link, and this new treaty did not fit in with your political ambitions. And it is another thing when your reason for cancelling seems to be that you did not want the "negative attention" they brought upon you combined with the fact that your gov member(s?) seem to hate Invicta for no apparent reason. Also the way this was carried out wasn't particularly pleasing to see either. C'est la vie I guess. [/quote] Well duh? Usually when alliances cancel on each other they have reasons for it. And as I said in the OP the reasons were conveyed in private to SOS, although SOS does not seem to respect that privacy. And, just to repeat my point, they were conveyed in private so I am not going to start listing them here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1298038883' post='2637550'] Well duh? Usually when alliances cancel on each other they have reasons for it. And as I said in the OP the reasons were conveyed in private to SOS, although SOS does not seem to respect that privacy. And, just to repeat my point, they were conveyed in private so I am not going to start listing them here. [/quote] Yes, that is the point. It is proof of why this concerns someone being in the wrong. Your alliance decided to cancel on SOS, because of the fact they were "unliked" and attracted negative attention, which was not helping your political ambitions. The lack of your MoFA's professionalism is another example of "someone being in the wrong." [quote]although SOS does not seem to respect that privacy.[/quote] Or they respect their intelligence clause. Edited February 18, 2011 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1298035405' post='2637536'] SoSb have ignored this treaty on at least two occasions. They openly supported the people hitting int here on owf and they then proceeded to sign a treaty with an alliance that tie them directly to a power bloc opposing int. Now of course these things are fully within SoSbs right to do as a sovereign alliance but can we please stop acting like we're shocked that it lead to int cancelling the treaty? Because that wasn't really a big surprise and it doesn't reflect bad on int no matter how much you people try to spin it. The things said between int and SoSb that the later leaked doesn't make int look bad either, the fact that it was leaked makes me think this was a great decision though. A footnote for those arguing that no SoSb gov have commented on this, I think Arrnea (sp?) would count as gov since he is their leader on paper at least. [/quote] Funny how their former senior gov himself, admitteed that friends were "sacrificed to achieve strategic objectives". What has SOS done wrong? They tried their hardest to stop it escalating regarding the SLCB drama, I would say went over the top. But you know why they went over the top? Because they had Int's interests at heart. They were prepared to be the laughing stock of CN for that moment for its allies... Int then decides that their political ambitions are under threat, and that at this stage this treaty is a hindrance in the pursuit of their political goals. I mean it is none of my business how they operate their foreign policy, but sacrificing your allies for your own success is selfish, and how do their government members dare to accuse SOS of being selfish? [quote]can we please stop acting like we're shocked that it lead to int cancelling the treaty? Because that wasn't really a big surprise and it doesn't reflect bad on int no matter how much you people try to spin it.[/quote] Who exactly is showing they are surprised? My only shock is that SOS did not cancel on Int straight after they neglected their duties to support their allies, because it would not help their foreign affairs position. [quote]A footnote for those arguing that no SoSb gov have commented on this, I think Arrnea (sp?) would count as gov since he is their leader on paper at least.[/quote] You are correct, "Arnnea" would count as government... and Arrnea did not comment on this. None of the government did. I am not aware of any members commenting either. Edited February 18, 2011 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1298039122' post='2637552'] Or they respect their intelligence clause. [/quote] [color="#FF0000"]Wait. What are we debating here? Intelligence clauses mean leaking information to irrelevant third parties? [/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1298049279' post='2637616'] [color="#FF0000"]Wait. What are we debating here? Intelligence clauses mean leaking information to irrelevant third parties? [/color] [/quote] They passed the information to Invicta. Therefore the argument of that they broke the trust of Int is invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1298049449' post='2637619'] They passed the information to Invicta. Therefore the argument of that they broke the trust of Int is invalid. [/quote] [color="#FF0000"]Stop right there cowboy. No it isn't. Nobody read treaties these days, so just waiving your hand and saying "Intelligence Clause", is not the excuse you are looking for.[/color] [quote]===Article II - Intelligence=== [i]Both signatories recognize that neither has any intelligence[/i], but that together they're better than nothing so they'll work together to make sure their homework gets done.[/quote] [color="#FF0000"]The above is just a recognition of the obvious. The E-Lawyer treaty is quite a bit more clear.[/color] [quote]===Article II - Intelligence=== Should either party receive information that [i]pertains to the safety or well-being of the other signatory[/i], they will seek to make it known to that signatory. Also, if either signatory has any reason to believe a security breach exists in the other alliance they are to present this concern and any evidence to their other signatory. Additionally, both parties agree not to commit espionage against each other.[/quote] [color="#FF0000"]INT-SOS relations that took place before the treaty was even signed have absolutly nothing to do with Rectum Invigortorum's safety or well-being. Let's recognize this for what it is. A bunch of childish !@#$%^&*.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itseZe Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1298039122' post='2637552'] It is proof of why this concerns someone being in the wrong. [/quote] Why is it "wrong" to cancel a treaty? It happens all the time and there is nothing wrong about it. This game would be quite boring if treaty connections would never change. And just because you don't like their reasons doesn't make it wrong for INT to cancel. INT's voters believes there are enough reasons, and that's all that matters. Just like when you cancelled on us. That's why there are cancellation clauses in treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael von Prussia Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1298059967' post='2637702'] INT-SOS relations that took place before the treaty was even signed have absolutly nothing to do with Rectum Invigortorum's safety or well-being. Let's recognize this for what it is. A bunch of childish !@#$%^&*. [/quote] Actually, as you may note from the screenshots depicting INT's reaction to the Invicta treaty being announced, the shared information was from after the treaty was signed. Furthermore, as I believe ShotgunWilly pointed out in this thread, since the C&G bloc is directly opposed to Invicta, and given the unsavory, borderline-threatening remarks a certain INT government member was making about Invicta in the shared information, it very much does relate to Invicta's security. Posting in bright and annoying colors to make yourself feel special, now [i]that's[/i] childish. Sharing information with valued allies pertaining to their alliance security, that's just common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298061021' post='2637708'] Actually, as you may note from the screenshots depicting INT's reaction to the Invicta treaty being announced, the shared information was from after the treaty was signed. Furthermore, as I believe ShotgunWilly pointed out in this thread, since the C&G bloc is directly opposed to Invicta, and given the unsavory, borderline-threatening remarks a certain INT government member was making about Invicta in the shared information, it very much does relate to Invicta's security. Posting in bright and annoying colors to make yourself feel special, now [i]that's[/i] childish. Sharing information with valued allies pertaining to their alliance security, that's just common sense. [/quote] [color="#FF0000"]You mean the screenshot released by....Schattenman, who isn't even in Invicta. The only "substance" there was the well known reiteration of a well known fact. CnG does not like Invicta. That's not exactly threatening their security. The fact that the SOS brigade released a screenshot of a conversation that was between the two alliances, for the purposes of getting even over the OWF is not part of an intelligence clause. It's the same childish whining that costantly comes from SOS anytime someone doesn't like them. edit: happy Janax?[/color] Edited February 18, 2011 by DictatatorDan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 [quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298061021' post='2637708'] Posting in bright and annoying colors to make yourself feel special, now [i]that's[/i] childish. [/quote] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v32/jaketacos/wtf.gif[/img] Oh no he didnt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego Rivera Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='Michael von Prussia' timestamp='1298005903' post='2637335'] There's not been a single post by an SOS団 member in this thread, which as far as I know is the only relevant one. Right. Does "before the treaty was canceled" include all that time when INT was threatening to cancel on them if they didn't comply with INT's demands? Or the period which included Craig's harassment of SOS団 government when someone [i]not even in the alliance[/i] at the time, Bernkastel, made his position known about INT's entering C&G? How about the time including Muted Faith's [i]lovely[/i] conduct, which as has been pointed out, was a violation of the treaty? Yes, [i]SOS団[/i] is the rotten side of this pairing [/quote] That is some fine reading comprehension. Nowhere did I mention a post by SOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1298042020' post='2637569'] ... What has SOS done wrong? They tried their hardest to stop it escalating regarding the SLCB drama, I would say went over the top. But you know why they went over the top? Because they had Int's interests at heart. They were prepared to be the laughing stock of CN for that moment for its allies... [/quote] please don't stop, I have not laughed this hard in a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1298042020' post='2637569'] What has SOS done wrong? They tried their hardest to stop it escalating regarding the SLCB drama, I would say went over the top. But you know why they went over the top? Because they had Int's interests at heart. They were prepared to be the [b]laughing stock of CN [/b]for that moment for its allies... [/quote] To be fair, the above bolded portion was happening regardless. The only thing that situation served to do was make them look like cowardly and submissive laughingstocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I have plenty of respect for SOS Brigade and wish them nothing but success and security in the future. Sure, we've had our differences, but I still consider much of their membership to be personal friends of mine, and those relationships will continue despite the lack of a formal treaty between our alliances. Like all good friends, we have occasionally exchanged sharp words. I regret that some of my fellow members have been baited into a petty argument, but I can't really blame them. We all love our alliance and sometimes it is impossible to resist the urge to speak out. I want to thank Arrnea and the rest of the SOS gang for demonstrating incredible self control in this thread. It is noted and appreciated. Cheers, SOS. The last two years have been a blast. You guys are good people. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1298063347' post='2637734'] You mean the screenshot released by....Schattenman, who isn't even in Invicta. [/quote] Schatt has strongly implied that his source was not in SOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1298095199' post='2638137'] Schatt has strongly implied that his source was not in SOS. [/quote] Well Schatt gave out information that was only shared by me in a discussion with SOS leader Arrnea that he then reportedly shared with the rest of his government. So yeah SOS is the leak pretty much, either directly or indirectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 So you're in the habit of talking to your allies and not sharing that information with the rest of your government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1298134586' post='2638451'] So you're in the habit of talking to your allies and not sharing that information with the rest of your government? [/quote] If you are asking if I copy/paste logs of every conversation I have with people on IRC then the answer is yes, I do not post huge walls of texts that no one would read anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) [font="Palatino Linotype"][color="#8B0000"]I think it's great that DictatorDan's first post in here was to insult everyone by saying they're talking about things they're ignorant of, and then he spends two pages doing it.[/color][/font] Edited February 19, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1298140743' post='2638507'] If you are asking if I copy/paste logs of every conversation I have with people on IRC then the answer is yes, I do not post huge walls of texts that no one would read anyways. [/quote] Why do you insist on responding to him as if he was relevant? It only fuels his ego. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='ShotgunWilly' timestamp='1298017414' post='2637462'] Cataduanes, Somehow... just somehow, I don't believe you. Logs please? Private message is acceptable if you don't want it publicized. [/quote] Heh why don't you ask your close ally Arrnea, I am sure he is honest enough to confirm that INT did make such a request and shot it down...if this turns into a formal denial of the aforementioned fact then yeah logs might be necessary, but i have total faith in Arrnea to not lie about this subject. Besides I have only just met you, and you have not tickled me in the right places yet And yeah I am well aware of Invicta's standing among CnG, I am also well aware of Invicta's situation as one of the most maligned outfits in CN, but if you feel the need to regale your alliances history/status I am sure we will all find it fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1298190179' post='2639287'] Heh why don't you ask your close ally Arrnea, I am sure he is honest enough to confirm that INT did make such a request and shot it down...if this turns into a formal denial of the aforementioned fact then yeah logs might be necessary, but i have total faith in Arrnea to not lie about this subject. [/quote] Seems I was indeed totally mistaken (It was not MCXA but someone else), so I apologize to both SOS and ShotgunWilly for my error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted February 20, 2011 Report Share Posted February 20, 2011 [quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1298194501' post='2639343'] Seems I was indeed totally mistaken (It was not MCXA but someone else), so I apologize to both SOS and ShotgunWilly for my error. [/quote] And the moral of the story is: don't take things at face value. As I mentioned earlier, any of you is more then welcome to chat with me and clear up some obvious misconceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeKy Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Why does this topic have 12 pages? I think the invicta treaty was the last straw that broke the camel's back. 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.