RoK is no longer SuperFriendly

[Earogema]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1299778094' post='2658662']
Do you really believe that they're "on their way out"? I certainly don't.
[/quote]
I do.

People always say this whenever a bloc loses an important member. "Oh hey this bloc isn't going to die anytime soon NOPE NO SIR!"

Then in like 6 months to a year it's gone. That's not too bad for a bloc that's been around since 2007.

Also I thought Rok had a treaty with Fark once Fark left SF too. Did that get canceled?

Edited March 11, 2011 by Earogema

[Beauty]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1299827343' post='2659714']
I do.

People always say this whenever a bloc loses an important member. "Oh hey this bloc isn't going to die anytime soon NOPE NO SIR!"

Then in like 6 months to a year it's gone. That's not too bad for a bloc that's been around since 2007.

Also I thought Rok had a treaty with Fark once Fark left SF too. Did that get canceled?
[/quote]

Its still in effect.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Rotavele' timestamp='1299827548' post='2659716']
Its still in effect.
[/quote]
Yeah I realized that I said Fark was not in SF and I was referring to Rok treaties within SF. I should probably go to bed.

[Heft]

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1299826366' post='2659699']*long post*
[/quote]
Umm, I'm not really making an argument, just pointing out that that argument has already been had. I don't really care what you think about that.

Also, your post isn't nearly as objective or "fact" based as you seem to want to believe.

[erikz]

Good luck in the future RoK. It's good to hear you guys didn't buckle under the pressure and made your own decisions accordingly.

[Mesteut]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299828925' post='2659731']
Umm, I'm not really making an argument, just pointing out that that argument has already been had. I don't really care what you think about that.

Also, your post isn't nearly as objective or "fact" based as you seem to want to believe.
[/quote]
Point it out, damnit. Unless you're trying to avoid an argument that actually puts into challenge what's convenient for you to argue for.

I'll check up on whatever answer you may have tomorrow.

[Avakael]

I come back home from Uni, I'm still sad.

Take care RoK.

[youwish959]

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1299826366' post='2659699']
Superfriends support arguments:
- Superfriends never collectively threathened RoK with expulsion. Xiphosis told he could bring up the vote.
[/quote]
That sounds like a threat to me. Although not a direct threat, certainly an implied one; coming from a personality such as Xiphosis.

[The Corrupt Teacher]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299814717' post='2659490']
You realize that GOD retains MADP ties to the two largest blocs in the world?

Popularity with the masses may not be their forte, but isolated they are not.
[/quote]

Actually #1 and #3 in terms of largest blocks. I think with Rok leaving and the International joining CnG passes SF.

[Vampiro]

[quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1299824967' post='2659677']
Rules of SF
#1 Dont question batman, EVER.
#2 See #1
#3 Don't pee on the rug
[/quote]

LOL. Don't EVAR question the Godamn Batman!

[MinuteVariance]

Another reason to respect RoK. Good move.

[foxfire99]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1299826082' post='2659693']
Yea that's not how it would be at all.

It would kind of be like if SF (another bloc that iFOK is not a part of) decided they were going to roll SLCB. (an ally of iFOK's that is not in iFOK's bloc). Then FARK (a MDoAP ally of iFOK with strong connections to the bloc wanting to roll SLCB) hit SLCB. Let's say in this instance you chose to defend SLCB. Then your allies in PB said "drop the SLCB treaty or you'll be out of our bloc".


Now that would be a fair analogy to make.
[/quote]

You changed the names and rephrased it to a Rok-friendly point of view, but that is still the same analogy. Just saying.

[Sephiroth]

Congrats on making a good decision, SF could of backed you guys who went to defend allies under attack, but instead wanted to continue to assist CnG, DH and PB who were all assisting in the plans to destroy your ally and carrying out the actions neccecary.

[Farnsworth]

I think this is a quality move by Rok.
Friends don't threaten each other and from the looks of it, Rok was given some fairly clear ultimatums.
Congrats on maintaining your sovereignty, Rok!

edit: typo

Edited March 11, 2011 by Farnsworth

[Farnsworth]

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1299826366' post='2659699']
It's time for a compare and contrast! Going from everything on this thread at your disposal:

Ragnarok support arguments:
- RoK is standing by her allies.
- SF tried to directly impose collective FA directives onto RoK.
- SF threatened with expulsion over the matter.
- Xiphosis is an evil puppet-master that arranged this.

Superfriends support arguments:
- Superfriends Pact is a treaty that supercedes any other treaty.
- Ragnarok has, currently AND in the past, openly took sides that conflicted with the interests of the greater good of the pact.
- Superfriends never collectively threathened RoK with expulsion. Xiphosis told he could bring up the vote.

Facts in thread / General information on how things work:
- RoK had shown that their loyalty lies to other alliances first.
- Superfriends Pact is superceding, it's in its very nature that the pact must come first.
- In a system where a nation can transition from one alliance to another at will (as opposed to a system in an alternative context where nations would be bound to geopolitical constraints), it is simple paranoia to think that one person can manipulate masses that form a sovereign alliance. Especially when each single nation has access to unrestricted communication.
- Ragnarok, instead of actually discussing it with the Superfriends (as friends do), has decided to leave Superfriends, and not in a friendly manner.

Now, tell me please, why should I believe in your side of the argument? As I told before, you're [i]very welcome[/i] to present hard evidence to sway me from my position.

To any outside observer, I'd urge you to consider a broader perspective before deciding what your opinion on the matter is. Information is easy to manipulate.

Hizzy: Please. You're forgetting I have convenient access to our side of politics. You're welcome to prove them wrong, by presenting logical counter-points against our side of the argument. If you are going to repeat the conspiracy theory, you might as well give verifiable observations backing your statements. Tinfoil hats are a little out of fashion.
[/quote]

I don't know the inner workings of SF, of course, but it would be interesting to find out how it operates. If the bloc is to consistently operate as a unified body then it seems a bloc-wide vote would need to occur to make sure one particular "side" in any given conflict is chosen. Assuming this is done prior to the entry of any SF member into the war, as would only be fair, then the result should be compulsory - remember, this is following the assumption that SF supersedes ALL other treaties. This situation is a bit dicey as such a vote could have landed in favor of siding with NpO, but then what are alliances like GOD to do about their MADPs with alliances like VE? - the reverse of this is what happened with Rok and Rok chose to not leave their non-SF ally out to dry, a move generally respected outside of SF and other negatively effected parties, though that's expected since a significant portion of those not negatively effected were positively effected.

[DogeWilliam]

So you like NpO?

[Penkala]

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1299827343' post='2659714']
I do.

People always say this whenever a bloc loses an important member. "Oh hey this bloc isn't going to die anytime soon NOPE NO SIR!"

Then in like 6 months to a year it's gone. That's not too bad for a bloc that's been around since 2007.

Also I thought Rok had a treaty with Fark once Fark left SF too. Did that get canceled?
[/quote]

We'll see if SF is gone within "6 months to a year" of Fark leaving.

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' timestamp='1299843801' post='2659846']
So you like NpO?
[/quote]

What's not to like? Polaris is lovable.

[Rodger Waldie]

o/ ROK

[Lurunin]

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1299826366' post='2659699']
It's time for a compare and contrast! Going from everything on this thread at your disposal:

Ragnarok support arguments:
- RoK is standing by her allies.
- SF tried to directly impose collective FA directives onto RoK.
- SF threatened with expulsion over the matter.
- Xiphosis is an evil puppet-master that arranged this.

Superfriends support arguments:
- Superfriends Pact is a treaty that supercedes any other treaty.
- Ragnarok has, currently AND in the past, openly took sides that conflicted with the interests of the greater good of the pact.
- Superfriends never collectively threathened RoK with expulsion. Xiphosis told he could bring up the vote.

Facts in thread / General information on how things work:
- RoK had shown that their loyalty lies to other alliances first.
- Superfriends Pact is superceding, it's in its very nature that the pact must come first.
- In a system where a nation can transition from one alliance to another at will (as opposed to a system in an alternative context where nations would be bound to geopolitical constraints), it is simple paranoia to think that one person can manipulate masses that form a sovereign alliance. Especially when each single nation has access to unrestricted communication.
- Ragnarok, instead of actually discussing it with the Superfriends (as friends do), has decided to leave Superfriends, and not in a friendly manner.

Now, tell me please, why should I believe in your side of the argument? As I told before, you're [i]very welcome[/i] to present hard evidence to sway me from my position.

To any outside observer, I'd urge you to consider a broader perspective before deciding what your opinion on the matter is. Information is easy to manipulate.

Hizzy: Please. You're forgetting I have convenient access to our side of politics. You're welcome to prove them wrong, by presenting logical counter-points against our side of the argument. If you are going to repeat the conspiracy theory, you might as well give verifiable observations backing your statements. Tinfoil hats are a little out of fashion.
[/quote]

fair enough...but if the SF treaty supersedes all other treaties why didnt more of you defend Rok when SLCB hit them. or help them with PC? SF is an MADP pact, which means you are obligated to go to war together, does that mean that you'll only honor that when it suits you? Props go to RIA for sticking by Rok at the time as it seems CSN/GOD never wanted to

edit: yes i know i left R&R out of here

Edited March 11, 2011 by Lurunin

[nippy]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1299847120' post='2659871']
What's not to like? Polaris is lovable.
[/quote]

[i]cue rimshot[/i]

[Wu Tang Clan]

Good move RoK. SF is a sinking ship, great idea to hop off.

[hizzy]

[quote name='Mesteut' timestamp='1299826366' post='2659699']
Hizzy: Please. You're forgetting I have convenient access to our side of politics. You're welcome to prove them wrong, by presenting logical counter-points against our side of the argument. If you are going to repeat the conspiracy theory, you might as well give verifiable observations backing your statements. Tinfoil hats are a little out of fashion.
[/quote]

The thing is, when 2 people who have access to 1 issue tell me 2 different stories, I'm going to weigh them on a couple of factors; 1) who's the more reliable source, and 2) which story is more likely to have occurred based on recent trends.

So right now it's basically people from GOD/CSN (who have arguably lost credibility with most of Planet Bob), against Hoo/RoK, who I know personally to be one of the more truthful people around these parts save myself ). Pretty easy to pick one there.

As for the story itself; what's more likely? That Xiphosis, Mr. "You're either with us or against us", threatened to put RoK up for expulsion, or that he just had a mutual disagreement and RoK blew it out of proportion? Again, pretty easy choice.

You can't spend all your time acting like jackasses and trumpeting how little you care about the peanut gallery, promoting people based on childish behaviour, and then expect anyone to take you seriously when you need it.

Edited March 11, 2011 by hizzy

[hizzy]

[quote name='nippy' timestamp='1299855412' post='2659924']
[i]cue rimshot[/i]
[/quote]

if you scroll past this really quick, the "cu" starts to blend into the "ri"

[Monster]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1299855195' post='2659922']
fair enough...but if the SF treaty supersedes all other treaties why didnt more of you defend Rok when SLCB hit them. or help them with PC? SF is an MADP pact, which means you are obligated to go to war together, does that mean that you'll only honor that when it suits you? Props go to RIA for sticking by Rok at the time as it seems CSN/GOD never wanted to

edit: yes i know i left R&R out of here
[/quote]

You do realize SLCB got dogpiled for a while there, right? I mean, I don't think they needed any further counters. The MADP is only also activated by a vote.

Better question: after RIA got hit by GATO, why didn't RoK divert forces to help RIA? This is if after the fact decisions are made(like RoK changing its mind on defending Polar) and are supposed to force other bloc partners to do certain things.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin