RoK is no longer SuperFriendly

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1299880320' post='2660353']
Actually you're the one that brought the free speech thing up. While I have realized that it's a hopeless cause to try and make you read the posts you respond to can you at least try to read your own?
[/quote]Excuse me? I brought up VE's right to free speech first? Where did I do that?

[Eddard Stark]

RoK and SuperFriends.. not DoomHouse, MK, NPO, etc.

[Fyfe XIV]

Some people are so astoundingly ignorant of how some things work. :|

[bakamitai]

Well done. Best of luck to Ragnarok.

[MaGneT]

Thrilled to see you guys making a sound choice distancing itself from the scum that is CsN and GOD. One more tie to sever to get rid of CsN, now, RoK.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

[hizzy]

oops, didnt see mod's post.

Edited March 12, 2011 by hizzy

[Valtamdraugr]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1299886021' post='2660537']
Thrilled to see you guys making a sound choice distancing itself from the scum that is CsN and GOD. One more tie to sever to get rid of CsN, now, RoK.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.
[/quote]
I usually a pretty jovial guy, but I must say... I take umbrage over your characterization of my friends and former allies.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion... I simply do not share it.

Good luck SF! (you ebil bastiches!)

[Earogema]

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1299846733' post='2659867']
We'll see if SF is gone within "6 months to a year" of Fark leaving.
[/quote]
It's not just 1 member. It's usually around the 2-3 member mark which is why I said this in the Rok announcement, not the Fark one.

Although Fark leaving was in fact telling.

[Hereno]

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1299907613' post='2661030']
tbqh, even when I was NV's MoFA i had a bad feeling about our relationship with VE... sure, we were on great terms with them on a personal level, I always loved shooting the !@#$ with their guys.... but at the same time I felt that politically they were either simply using NV as a buffer for their own good, or simply as a way for them to have some influence in a sphere where they didn't really have any. This isn't to say they ever tried telling us what to do (they didn't), but Nueva Vida is the type of alliance that always tries to keep their allies' best interests at heart.

The attack on Polaris turned that gut feeling into fact in my eyes; VE had been using Nueva Vida the whole time. Never before had there ever been a situation that so blatantly required VE to give NV a shout, and they dropped the ball.
[/quote]

I disagree. In truth, while we have our differences, VE are some of the best allies I've ever worked with. They've always been nothing but honest, open, and supportive whenever I've dealt with them. Additionally, while I wouldn't support an ally picking who it's allies are allied to, alliances that treaty two alliances at-odds with each other aren't really keeping their allies' best interests in mind.

I'm not saying NV is guilty of this, but in a general sense, this is one of the main problems with the messy web we have now. Alliances are constantly getting stuck in the middle in these sticky situations, and it ends up leaving us with situations like the one SF is dealing with regarding Ragnarok (with them being stuck in the middle of all of this). These situations are messy, ugly, and the complete opposite of beneficial for everyone involved.

I know it's hard to hold off on signing with all of your friends, because you want to stick by each other, but I feel that FA departments should be a bit more careful and keep their web positions in mind. After all, eventually, you have no other alternatives but to end up picking sides or just staying out and being useless. We would have a lot less of these bitter breakups and conflicting interests, at the very least.

[Dontasemebro]

[quote][color=#1C2837][size=2]Rather than face possible expulsion due to not dropping some of our allies[/quote][/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2][/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
Orly[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]Words will be had.[/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]
[/size][/color]

[abdur]

Best of luck to all parties.
Kudos to RoK for sticking with your guns.

[zoskia]

I like what you are doing. You're a great Alliance.

[Bob Janova]

Hey Hizzy you know I like you but you are underinformed in this case – we did 'give NV a shout'. I'll leave it at that since as you subsequently noticed this isn't really the thread for it.

RoK differ from NV in that NV have always made it clear that they were 'between the sides', and, much as I like them, something like this was always likely to happen. (In fact this isn't the first time, Bipolar also put VE on one side and NpO on the other.) RoK, on the other hand, held a pretence of being a member of the SF-PB-C&G side, but was actually always more interested in Polar. (Look back at the last 15 months with the benefit of hindsight: in Bipolar they stayed out, despite their direct treaty partner being hit, until Polar had pulled their volte-face, at which point they joined in. And obviously in this war they transparently chose Polar over SF/PB.

(Compare that also to the actions of C&G in wars, where the bloc chooses a side as a group and sticks to it, even if that involves technical breaking of treaties, or at the very least denying requests for assistance, with the other side.)

While I normally don't approve of one alliance trying to dictate another's FA (see the GOD-GOONS thread for example), when one alliance is deliberately choosing a path that is directly opposed to the objectives of its bloc, it's probably best if that alliance isn't in the bloc. We had it with Old Guard in Karma and SF have had it with RoK here. At least Old Guard didn't tell us that they were happy to go with Karma first, though.

[Heft]

[quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1299886021' post='2660537']
Thrilled to see you guys making a sound choice distancing itself from the scum that is CsN and GOD. One more tie to sever to get rid of CsN, now, RoK.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.
[/quote]
So is this "CsN" thing like the "GOONs" thing cause if so I'm totally on board but I feel like I missed something. :/

[President S O]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1299938219' post='2661458']
So is this "CsN" thing like the "GOONs" thing cause if so I'm totally on board but I feel like I missed something. :/
[/quote]

Little 's' for little sovereignty?

[Heft]

[quote name='President S O' timestamp='1299939768' post='2661464']
Little 's' for little sovereignty?
[/quote]
Okay, I guess that works. Probably a little punchier than "CNo-SN" too. I don't know.

[hizzy]

[quote name='President S O' timestamp='1299939768' post='2661464']
Little 's' for little sovereignty?
[/quote]

Little sovereignty, and little anything else, too.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1299934298' post='2661427']
Hey Hizzy you know I like you but you are underinformed in this case – we did 'give NV a shout'. I'll leave it at that since as you subsequently noticed this isn't really the thread for it.

RoK differ from NV in that NV have always made it clear that they were 'between the sides', and, much as I like them, something like this was always likely to happen. (In fact this isn't the first time, Bipolar also put VE on one side and NpO on the other.) RoK, on the other hand, held a pretence of being a member of the SF-PB-C&G side, but was actually always more interested in Polar. (Look back at the last 15 months with the benefit of hindsight: in Bipolar they stayed out, despite their direct treaty partner being hit, until Polar had pulled their volte-face, at which point they joined in. And obviously in this war they transparently chose Polar over SF/PB.[/quote]


I don't usually respond to you once you get started Bob, but there are a few things you have omitted. Polar went to war with one of RoK's direct treaty partners (twice) and we couldn't exactly declare on them at the time ... you know, with that MDoAP we had with them and all. Secondly, we did cancel on them for it when they up and did it the second time. You keep saying that we "chose Polar!" at the time, when in reality we did not. Two treaty partners were fighting, and when a second treaty partner was hit by Polar, we had no choice but to drop them. Lastly, the reason Polar was dropped in that instance is because they hit a Superfriend and we just could not let that happen without consequence.

You are free to post your usual odd ramblings, but please cease with the inaccuracies. Polar had to go because they hit a Superfriend when they didn't have to, so RoK does not have "a history of choosing Polar over the bloc" based on the examples that you keep giving.

[Goldie]

[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]

It is not a MADP treaty. If it was, Rok would have been obligated to hit alongside R&R, who entered the war before they did.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1299862621' post='2659991']
So much the more that RoK should ditch Superfriends for following GOD to VE's side and rushing into the war minutes before RoK could post their DoW--[i]in full knowledge [/i]that RoK had decided to honor the treaty VE forced them to honor by attacking Polaris--to avoid assisting RoK in order to support VE, an outside alliance which has been rejected from SF on more than one occasion.
[/quote]

Well, to be fair, the first things Rok told their allies were that they'd be supporting us, then after the DoW they changed their tune.

And it was just once

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1299865476' post='2660034']
Ah, I wasn't aware, but it certainly helps explain why so many VE members are in here acting as if they somehow are a part of SF.
[/quote]

Generally holding 3 close treaties with members of a bloc lets you be privy to a lot of its inner workings. But no, I don't think anyone here is acting as if they're somehow in SF, that ship sailed about 2.5 years ago (Impero is off by a little), and our treaties to SF just went from 3 of 5 members (60%) to 2 of 4 members (50%) so we are actually technically less close to SF as of this announcement than we were before

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1299867612' post='2660058']
Didn't want to take another Q&A beating.
[/quote]

There are very few rules of FA in CN, but one of them has to be don't ever let Smooth do any.

[quote name='Farnsworth' timestamp='1299871009' post='2660123']
This is tangential and likely already thoroughly discussed in a more related thread, but given the old friendships and alliances VE has with NV and Rok, do you find it odd that VE would attack NpO, an ally of both NV and Rok, without utilizing NV and Rok as mediators in diplomatic discussion to seek a more amicable resolution prior to an all out assault? It's an odd expression of a vested interest and runs counter to what most would expect of an ally - even on Planet Bob where expectations are arguably low.


edit: typo
[/quote]

When both of their emperors give their support to us pre-declaration for our intent to declare war, why negotiate?

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1299953368' post='2661630']When both of their emperors give their support to us pre-declaration for our intent to declare war, why negotiate?[/quote]


I actually agree with this. Negotiation is optional, especially when you don't really like the alliance at all. The only reason you'd even feign negotiation is when the target is allied to your allies. In this case, RoK gave the impression that they were not defending Polar and didn't care if they were hit. I wouldn't have negotiated at that point either ...

Obviously, I can't speak for NV and have no idea how that conversation went.

[Goldie]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299954698' post='2661647']
I actually agree with this. Negotiation is optional, especially when you don't really like the alliance at all. The only reason you'd even feign negotiation is when the target is allied to your allies. In this case, RoK gave the impression that they were not defending Polar and didn't care if they were hit. I wouldn't have negotiated at that point either ...

Obviously, I can't speak for NV and have no idea how that conversation went.
[/quote]

Can never win though Hoo, as you know as much as anyone. If you don't negotiate, you are evil warmongers ruining the game with war. If you do negotiate, you are pansy pacifists ruining the game with peace.

[Penkala]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1299953368' post='2661630']
It is not a MADP treaty. If it was, Rok would have been obligated to hit alongside R&R, who entered the war before they did.
[/quote]

That's not quite true.

It is and it isn't. It's MDoAP until an aggressive war is approved by the bloc, in which case it becomes a MADP.

I know what you meant, though. At the time, it wasn't in a binding MADP phase, so RoK wasn't obligated to assist R&R.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Penkala

[Lurunin]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1299953368' post='2661630']
It is not a MADP treaty. If it was, Rok would have been obligated to hit alongside R&R, who entered the war before they did.


[/quote]

[quote=SF wiki]The SuperFriends is a MADP bloc originally between Farkistan, the Random Insanity Alliance, the Atlantic Shadow Confederation and which later expanded to include the Global Order of Darkness, Ragnarok, Monos Archein, R&R, and the Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations. In the years following it's creation, the Atlantic Shadow Confederation merged into Ragnarok, Farkistan withdrew from the Pact, and Monos Archein merged into the Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations. Between October 20, 2008 and June 11, 2010 the SuperFriends bloc was MDoAPed to the Teen Titans bloc which consisted originally of the Armed Coalition of Valor, International Protection Agency, and The Order of Halsa. Over time the Teen Titans grew to include Apocalypse, the Ascended Republic of Elite States, Through Yggdrasil's Roots, and the League of United Defense.[/quote]

[s]you were saying?[/s]

edit: just tracked down the SF DoE and i'll retact this statement....seems like its caught in the middle of an MDAP/MDoAP

Edited March 12, 2011 by Lurunin

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1299963237' post='2661804']
you were saying?
[/quote]

If you did any research, like say, reading the text of the actual agreement, you'd know there is a vote required to make the A part mandatory, otherwise its oA.

Article D for your reading pleasure.
[quote]
D. Member alliances will not be required to participate in aggressive wars initiated by another member alliance unless approved by the bloc. Approval for offensive actions must be passed by 2/3 of the current signatories no less than 48 hours before said conflict begins. Voluntary participation in unapproved offensive wars is discretionary.[/quote]

[Goldie]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1299963237' post='2661804']
[s]you were saying?[/s]

edit: just tracked down the SF DoE and i'll retact this statement....seems like its caught in the middle of an MDAP/MDoAP
[/quote]

I am both shocked and appalled, imagine, an incorrect wiki. I don;t want to live in a world where wiki pages aren't exact representations of fact.

SF has to vote to make it a MADP treaty. When you compare it to, say, C&G, which is a true MADP bloc in which if one of its members go to war, all are obligated, it is hard to call SF a MADP bloc.

But the semantics are not what matters, what does is that the other members of SF were under no obligation to defend Polar if Rok decided to do so.

What is true, however, is that Polar's side tried to play SF (and to a lesser extent, C&G) like a harmonica and swing it over to its side by purposefully ignoring the two biggest alliances hitting Polar, VE and FOK (due to their SF ties), and focusing only on iFOK (with no C&G or SF ties) and then later PC (with only C&G but no SF ties). Do you not think the other alliances of SF had a right to be mad at Polar and Rok, who were clearly trying to manipulate the bloc into fighting for a side it didn't want to? There, my friends, is one of the many interesting things on the other side of the street from the view you were presented in the OP. Both sides were clearly wronging each other, Rok was wronging SF by trying to manipulate it into a place it didn't want to go, against several of its allies, and SF was wronging Rok by being in the position in the first place of having an incompatible FA path.

I, for one, think it is best for Rok and best for SF to have this break, because clearly if you can't exist together without trying to manipulate each other into bad situations, then you shouldn't exist together.