Ayayay

Why are people posting the nazi tumblr frog thing?

Valid CB

IDK why people keep saying we wanted to escalate, everyone is saying we lost the war and should surrender. In fact, several hours before we had to defend BK from TS aggression the representative for Chaos gave us surrender terms. How can we escalate if we are losing against Anti-memesphere? It doesn't make any sense if you guys just look at the stats.

The fact that someone in 2019 thinks IP's are unique and can be used to determine identity is hilarious. Even if we assume everyone on the planet has requested a static IP from their ISP provider, anyone who plays this game from their phones are immediately screwed. I remember a few years ago when @Alex implemented the trading block for people who had ever ended up with the same IP's and it immediately caused problems for people who had logged into pw from airports before causing sheepy to have to change it up a bit iirc.

But over half the community loves NPO, in fact a good quarter is in a single protectorate of theirs!

What people tell their own members doesn't actually matter. To explain the inns and outs of the system is too complicated for 90% of the players so there's no reason to waste time explaining it especially since most of them don't actually remember or really care.

1. If they are active enough to intervene in our war to get owr/cathage peace they are active enough to respond in a timely matter. 2. No aid to people we're fighting is normal. Considering the fact that we fully expect arrgh to continue their dumb policy of fighting forever and never signing a nap it made perfect sense to demand their war dodging gov to promise not to rejoin for a good long while. 3. If you didn't want us to hit you should've agreed faster. We would've asked for fairly mild terms originally but after several weeks of getting the run around of course we would raise them due to the lack of shown respect. 4. As discussed numerous times, NPO is in-fact fulfilling the terms of their /Non-chaining/ treaty by having not attacked you. Their treaty was not activated since, even if TS was entering in the defense of, it was a proct treaty chain-in. All alliances that hit T$ otoh have no such non-chaining clauses in their treaties and all chained in normally.

1. I was using ranges as an example. And we don't actually know if it's a separate legal entity. They could just be poaching members for their bank AA to make it look legit or they're just rebuilding to send war aid or even re-join the war proper. Because of this potential issue we required proof of TEst independence. 2. These four nations claimed that they had no intention of returning back to the war and re-joining Arrgh so we simply asked them to confirm that by promising not to aid our enemies or re-join arrgh for a period of time. The fact that the term was not accepted is proof in everyones eyes that they both wanted to and were going to provide assistance to our enemies and/or they had the full intention of returning to aargh extremely soon. We only wanted TS to prove that those two options were not the case by promising to ensure that those specific four nations upheld the terms. TS refusing to do so means could very likey mean that they were aware of these four nations plans to assist our enemies soon and/or re-join aargh. 3. As has been stated numerous times, TS was well aware that we considered these nations active combatants and that we were going to continue our defensive war against them if they did not properly exit the war via a surrender. In return for our generosity TS choose to stall the surrender negations for over two weeks. Peace was never agreed because T$'s FA leader kept refusing to engage in the talks forcing us to discuss with the IA minister instead.

1. By your logic memesphere were aggressive against GoB because after the first round it took us a bit to get back up into range to hit them again. The fact of the matter is that there is no statue of limitations for when we can't continue the war against our enemies. 2. While we were willing to only ask for surrenders from the 4 arrgh war dodgers /who are the leadership of TEst/, if someone joins an alliance and their entire gov is at war with us they are by definition choosing to enter the war against us themselves. If someone defected in the middle of a war, you don't have to draft a DoW against them and activate treaties again just for that particular nation. in the same vien, the entirety of TEst upon its formation was at war with our sphere and just because we felt we didn't have the capacity to hit them at that particular time doesn't mean we were at peace with them in exactly the same vien as we weren't at peace with GoB just because it took us a month into the war to hit then. 3.T$ were rapidly informed that we still viewed these nations as enemies and while we were willing to only ask for surrenders from a small handful, by virtue of the fact that they are the gov of TEst and are at war with us, so too are the members that choose to join them during the war. It's the same conflict, T$ choose to enter into it to assist nations that declared war on us nearly 4 months ago now

Kek, you can't really blame the younger PW players for not understanding how non-chaining treaties work, but there are quite a few people posting from CN who should know better.

As stated numerous times, we were at war with their protectorates gov before they signed the proct. To give an example, if Fark signed a proct over Arrgh right now and entered the war by hitting UPN that would, by all correct definitions, be an aggressive action. HOWEVER, even if you want to be objectivly wrong and claim T$ is on the defensive, it is still a non-chaining treaty meaning NPO has no obligation to assist T$ if they choose to "defend" their "protectorate." Furthermore, if you look at partibois shitpost in the OP, he's not even attempting to argue the latter because he knows that it is true. His argument is that some of the alliances hitting him are not /directly/ tied to BK/GotG but as I said earlier that doesn't matter since every single alliance hitting T$ has a defensive treaty chain that reachs back to those two aa's which means NPO is not obligated to assist since their treaty is non-chaining. If an alliance that doesn't have a treatychain back to BK/GotG hits T$ then, and only then, would NPO have an obligation to act.

It's non-chaining, so T$ entering via an agressive war and getting countered means that NPO doesn't have to enter. TC MDoAP is chaining through the BK-TCW treaty and is therefor defensive and not aggressive. [insert Chad MDoAP vs Virgin MnDoAP meme templete here]

But, and this is key here, it is not defensive just because they signed a protectorate if we are already at war. It is an aggressive action.

No ceasefire was brokered, we merely stoped launching attacks temporarily out of our own generous hearts and I'm calling it a ceasefire because I'm to lazy to type all that. We were still 100% at war with these nations and informed TS of this fact on day 1 and that unless they surrendered promptly we would continue with the wars, as is our right.

Let me turn this around, if ts signed a protectorate over UPN 2 days after ketog hit TC and then entered into the war by launching counters on guardian would you call that offensive or defensive?

T$ entered into the war by protecting ex-arrgh gov that we merely had a temporary ceasefire with pending speedy negotiations (that failed) and offensively hit bk. TS has a non-chaining MDoAP with NPO, not a MDAP. Seems pretty clearcut to me, seems partiboi has lost his edge.

Super important bump

So, going back to the original question "Will TS protect their protectorate?" The answer is no because they're getting rolled into the dirt. 6 counters in 4 hours = RIP

Negotiations have been ongoing for over two weeks, that's more than a reasonable timeframe. Or is your hangup the fact that people are fighting during negotiations? In that case are you also going to complain that we're hitting anti-memesphere during their surrender negotiations too? Honestly none of this matters since I'm sure it'll blow over in a bit, but your arguments are pretty disingenuous imho

The term was that 4 specific war dodging arrgh nations in TEst couldn't trade with our enemies. If TS is lying to you about the terms discussion it's not anyone problem but your own.

If they didn't want to be hit then they shouldn't have TEsted our patience

This is so over the top, lmfao. This shall be the new standard by which all other peace term fulfillment threads are judged.