Tevron

1st Degree Zombies Preamble: [Rise of the Undead Mob (hereafter RUM) and Vox Populi (hereafter Vox) hereby announce "1st Degree Zombies"] Where everyone is undead and, Where everything is harmony, Where gangster mugs are always free. A bar where we do dirty deeds And share their lot with those with needs, But still have fun in with our crew While being bad and firm and true. Search for a sign with compasses and square, Easily found, they're most everywhere, Just note the number and the street See where Vox Populi and RUM did meet Article I - Non-Aggression Neither alliance is to engage or support military aggression against the other. Any member of either party found in violation of these terms will be required to pay appropriate repatriations and be disciplined accordingly. Article II - Optional Defense Each signatory has the right to ask the other to come to their defense, however neither is obliged to do so. In the event that one signatory feels they are unable to assist due to other matters or conflicts of interest, this decision is to be accepted by both parties. Article III: Intelligence Sharing Should either the RUM or Vox learn of any information that may be relevant to the other's or their allies' security situation, the holder of information must inform the other in a swift and direct manner through secure channels. Article IV: Review Should either party decide to upgrade the treaty, they may do so after discussion and agreement at their leisure. Article V - Cancellation Both signatories uphold the right to cancel this agreement as they see fit but must give 72-hours notice before doing so. Signed for RUM: Owner/Iron God - Alexio Manager - Tevron Bartender - Banned PR & Advertising/Alexios gal - Hannah Doorman - Arthur "Does" Dallas Bouncer - Macky "The" G Signed for Vox: Lord of Convergence: Baronus Lord Retinue: Peter Quill Council of Guidance

Now we exist.

Looks good

I understand that, if you read my post with a bit more scrutiny, you would see I was replying to Auctor about a different war, one that I mistakenly brought up, but upon which he made a claim. He said this: I showed him how he had a different expectation in the past based on his own forum posts. I hope that clarified things! (Though on the other hand, to add a little fuel to the fire, Mensa was hit by Zodiac, an ally of BK. If NPO truly is mad about what TKR did and considered it dishonorable, they should perhaps take some consideration into BK's actions this war.)

And I agree with that, but I see people like greatkitteh dropping the text of that treaty in several threads, and I recently read some of those to see what was actually said. https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/13434-the-knights-radiant-declaration-of-war/?p=248720 https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/13434-the-knights-radiant-declaration-of-war/?p=248756 Specifically, you were among those who expected TKR to break their NAP, in the above quote that includes you, you stress the importance of honoring defensive treaty obligations above others. To be honest, I don't think TKR handled this the best, but there has been this rhetoric circulating for quite some time, and you were among those spreading it. It is easy to say now that you have changed your opinion on the matter, and good for you, that's being a human, but it doesn't mean that the expectation wasn't there back then because I can just look at the forums and see that in a lazy minute. I'm sure there's more on this, but I'd rather not waste the next one on it. xD EDIT: Important messup in typing

Oh are they talking about the war where NPO wanted TKR to break their non-aggression pacts and declare on their own allies then? It's so hard to follow these discussions.

But not if T$ got hit, then you guys would just ignore Zodiac's treaty, sort of like how BK ignored Mensas? Is that about right? I don't see how it would make any difference who exactly you pre-empted. Any ally worth a teaspoon of salt would know that the specific target in a coalition based warfare is far less important than the overall goal. In this case, it was the removal of T$, TKR, Mensa etc, from power, apparently out of fear of being rolled. Even by coming up with some extraordinarily weak and poorly matched counters to TKR, it's not like TKR and co. don't know who led the coalition, and what the aim of the conflict was (to weaken their ally, to weaken their side etc.) The mere suggestion that things would've been different if TKR was the target is a steaming pile. Everyone with a brain on your side should be able to conclude that the aim was not to help TKR, but to harm it. Hell, if TKR had been preempted, the coalition would have just weedled their way out of their treaties in the same way BK did. If they didn't have the spine for that, how ever did anyone on the IQ side think this war would ever amount to any good? It's no wonder alliances have already left the battlefield, they have no respect for the cause, and were in some cases apparently manipulated into war (tTO)

To be honest I swing on the opposite side. I think that anyone signed with these losers who don't honor their treaties should drop them. Even if you were on their side this war, you know that given a shift in opinion, they don't have the stones to cancel on you, and they sure don't have even the baseline decency to honor an agreement. The relationship does matter, but honor and specifics matter as well, at least to me.

If this announcement applies to only one person, why is it an alliance announcement? Why not just send a raven or a postboy a smoke signal, I don't know?

Now, I may just be pointing out the obvious here, but they left the war on their own. That distinctly separates them from the groups still fighting.

Please do, it's like greatkitteh's in a spam competition, one where (s)he ignores replies to their bullshit and then spews new slightly grosser bullshit. I mean to be fair, almost half of TKR can't hit NPO either. It's hard to damage something that far below you in any way, and in the mid tier, you highly outnumber people, so obviously you're winning there, for now. I can't tell if your banter lacks knowledge of elementary warfare or if you are in some sort of doublethink where you ignore all premises of what you actually say.

I was joking about baseball as you were about treaties. Though I'm sure you're also joking now, but just in case we're on opposite wavelengths. Sorry it's hard to tell, since I have a feeling Mensa HQ was entirely serious about activating their own clause, BK mocked them and activated theirs, and then you followed it up with your joke. Hard to tell if it's a serious one or not considering there is a global war and a lot of people aren't taking their paper seriously. My bad.

MnDoAP. The defense clause is non-chaining. I'm not government, but it will have to be a discussion since it has become optional as a result of your aggressive wars against Mensa. You can check your own alliance page, or ours, to see that it is listed as a non-chaining treaty. I think you're an econ guy, and if I was you I'd stick to baseball and banking. I wonder if you did that, I really do. I hope you guys are good enough allies, but I'm new to this world and still forming my opinions.

Great job HBE, this is what honoring your treaties actually means guys!

Oh Jesus War Good Friday War +1

It looks like you ignored my response in the other thread when you posted this completely unrelated attempt at a gotcha. Here I'll quote myself.

I didn't realize what was happening with our conversation up until this point, until I realized that you are arguing with Big Brother, then later myself about something neither of us are discussing. You are talking about the hegemoney NPO established in what, 2007? The one that many fought against and created a very exciting political climate ripe with betrayal, destruction, and feudalistic viceroyalties. Somehow you misread Big Brother's post. He was referring to a boring hegemoney (big brother's words), aka the current (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) hegemoney, established and maintained by the current Pacifican community + Oculus aka, the current Pacifican PnW government. While I admire your steadfast desire to defend your alliance from what you perceive as misrepresentations of your culture or whatever, you actually are defending a point that is being held by no one in this thread to my knowledge. I was attempting to lighten the mood with some commie jokes, which you also took the wrong way xD In fact, I would say most respect how PnW NPO is similar to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) NPO with regard to their competent leadership, strong community and commitment to long-term victory, and general non-idiocy in foreign affairs decisionmaking. And that is also why they have some disdain for them, specifically because they fear they will create the same kind of stagnating political atmosphere through similar means of control. I don't necessarily abide by that discussion, but it's the actual discussion Big Brother attempted to have about BK, and not about NPO.

I mean, this is some fake news. LoD, Roq, and Auctor have all been pro Pacifica for at least the last two years. The head of an organization is far more important than the 100% taxed, agency-free membership. You're accusing others of blurring lines, but the lines have been blurred this whole time. Are you government? Are you even allowed to post here or did you wonder away from the toilet paper line because there weren't enough rations to go around this time? Or did you have this message pre-typed by the big brother that knows best? There's a serious gap of logic here though. The expectation that you have for your allies is that they should be willing to break non-aggression clauses to defend their allies, but I see no public (and I'm aware of no private) communications to BK from Pacifica about their unwillingness to enter against SK, who they don't even have a non-aggression clause to deter from their entry. In effect, the standards by which your allies behave in a way appropriate to you is entirely arbitrary, and only matters when the deck is against you. I suggest that it's okay to be a little firm in your convictions and standards instead of being flaccid in them. If you really give a rat's ass about TKR's "betrayal" of Pacifica than you should probably hold your bloc-mates to the same standard. EDIT: Formatting help me

I'm with you there, and I hope to see you both defending each other. I think BK has a bit more freedom since they aren't getting smashed at the moment, and I personally look forward to fighting alongside you against the Seven Kingdoms. I hope you're able to handle the strange multi-front war, but I'm guessing since you were at the planning table, you knew it was bound to happen and have prepared your best effort to protect your allies as any decent person would.

Except it isn't a problem of NK vs SK or Pakistan vs India. It's like NATO vs USSR, and someone is treatied to both. They can fight on both sides if they want and never touch an ally of their own. They just choose not to because they lack the stones or the foresight to make pragmatic decisions either before the conflict or thereafter.

Strawman baby, refer to my prior post before parroting something already said and responded to. Is this a joke? Politics is literally everything. This is politics too. Paper is politics. Betrayal is politics. Honor is politics. We can BS about it all day if you want, but glazing it over with proverbs for kids aint doing you justice. I think you make a good point. Treaties are worthless if the alliances lack the honor to back them. That's why you sign treaties with people who have backbones, and not cowards who are afraid to fight people they have no connection to (in order to protect their allies.) If they were not willing to stand for them, they should never have signed the treaty or they should have cancelled it. It speaks volumes to the competence of an FA department that can't recognize the PR nightmare they create in their wake by not cancelling before a war if they have no desire to honor any treaties.

It was just a prank dude.

So your entire logic is, your other mutual treaties are invalidated by your bloc?

You hold no treaty with SK,but you do hold one with Mensa. Doing harm to Mensa is certainly not in the spirit of your treaty, whereas doing harm to SK would in fact, alleviate some of their problems I'm sure. I mean I may be on drugs here, but I'm pretty sure BK & T$ (The alliances against NPO) both had non-aggression clauses with TKR at the time, whereas............. Woah, SK and BK do not Got another strawman for me to slay?

Two treaties don't conflict. You have no treaty with SK.