Syndicate Press Release: Kangaroo's meat sales increase by 200%!

[James II]

Who decides who is defending/offending?

Are you serious?

[Dr Rush]

Yes he is, as that has for the last several wars been an entirely debatable point.

[Prefontaine]

Are you serious?

Your alliance has stated several times Rose was acting defensively in the last war, while Rose said no, we were offensive. And that's just one example.

[Eumirbago]

Are you serious?

Lmfao

[Ivan the Red]

Yes he is, as that has for the last several wars been an entirely debatable point.

 

I think that's the last nail in the coffin for Steve's belief in a conditional NAP being worth the ink invested in writting it.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Ivan the Red

[Prefontaine]

Is anyone concerned about the fact that Alpha apparently has 130k infra, yet none of their nations that aren't in vacation mode have a city that's over 1k?

That's about 320 infra per city, so no, just the idiots would be concerned about that.

[LordRahl2]

Are you serious?

Yes? Are you? Besides Pre's one example there are many others in Orbis' history.

 

I am actually a bit surprised that the question surprised you.

Edited May 26, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Beowulf the Second]

So are we all agreeing that the NAP, even conditional, would weaken the ability of t$ to defend its allies, because the conditions provided are entirely subjective?

[Prefontaine]

Oh you're right.

Sure am glad I wasn't worried.

Yep. Close call on that one.

[Utz]

Idk why I even read this anymore. It's just the same thing over and over. Lol

 

hey accept peace

 

Give us NAP, we destroyed more

 

No NAP, we destroyed more

 

Kinda ridiculous to be honest. It sort of feels like two toddlers fighting over a cookie Lol

[donsberger]

Idk why I even read this anymore. It's just the same thing over and over. Lol

 

hey accept peace

 

Give us NAP, we destroyed more

 

No NAP, we destroyed more

 

Kinda ridiculous to be honest. It sort of feels like two toddlers fighting over a cookie Lol

Depends on what kind of cookie 

[TellUrGrlThx]

Idk why I even read this anymore. It's just the same thing over and over. Lol

 

hey accept peace

 

Give us NAP, we destroyed more

 

No NAP, we destroyed more

 

Kinda ridiculous to be honest. It sort of feels like two toddlers fighting over a cookie Lol

 

It's not even because they destroyed more. t$ doesn't trust Alpha to give them a NAP. And Alpha doesn't trust t$ to not hit them again in a month to end the war without a NAP.

 

There's no real valid disagreement in who has destroyed more. We all know t$ won this war weeks ago and Alpha is just being a little !@#$ at this point for the sole purpose of being a little !@#$. If this was a world war Alpha would have been forced by their allies to peace out ASAP because other alliances in their sphere give a shit about their members.

[Critters]

Kinda ridiculous to be honest. It sort of feels like two toddlers fighting over a cookie Lol

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!!!

[Jodo]

I'm only here for the cookies.

[Placentica]

So are we all agreeing that the NAP, even conditional, would weaken the ability of t$ to defend its allies, because the conditions provided are entirely subjective?

This is false.  What was discussed is that if either tS or Alpha attack the other's allies, that alliance who allies were attacked could terminate the NAP.  Call it a conditional NAP, a NAP with a non-chain clause, or a NAP with a termination clause to protect that sort of thing.  I wouldn't agree to any treaty with tS that would weaken's Alpha's ability to defend our allies from a tS attack on them.  Aggression is easily outlined in a NAP as well, that's not really an issue.  That's what definitions are for.

 

lol at anyone who thinks Alpha is attacking anyone soon.  This isn't to protect us to attack others, it's to prevent a direct tS attack on us after we rebuild.

 

 

.....Alpha is just being a little !@#$ at this point for the sole purpose of being a little !@#$. If this was a world war Alpha would have been forced by their allies to peace out ASAP because other alliances in their sphere give a shit about their members.

If looking out for my alliance's future security makes me a little !@#$, then guilty as charged.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Placentica

[Prefonteen]

This is false.  What was discussed is that if either tS or Alpha attack the other's allies, that alliance who allies were attacked could terminate the NAP.  Call it a conditional NAP, a NAP with a non-chain clause, or a NAP with a termination clause to protect that sort of thing.  I wouldn't agree to any treaty with tS that would weaken's Alpha's ability to defend our allies from a tS attack on them.  Aggression is easily outlined in a NAP as well, that's not really an issue.  That's what definitions are for.

 

lol at anyone who thinks Alpha is attacking anyone soon.  This isn't to protect us to attack others, it's to prevent a direct tS attack on us after we rebuild.

 

Way to skip all the more detailed posts by t$ government (think Roy, I) and ignoring all valid arguments, only to drive home an isolated point against a regular t$ member.

 

Will we ever receive a straight answer from you on a topic where your claims seem to have been refuted? 

[Thalmor]

This thread just keeps on giving.

[Keegoz]

This thread just keeps on giving.

May it never end

[Regulus]

If looking out for my alliance's future security makes me a little !@#$, then guilty as charged.

 

The longer this goes on, the more your future is being punched. Over and over.

[Placentica]

Way to skip all the more detailed posts by t$ government (think Roy, I) and ignoring all valid arguments, only to drive home an isolated point against a regular t$ member.

 

Will we ever receive a straight answer from you on a topic where your claims seem to have been refuted? 

I thought you were on vacation?  I can't quite tell when/if that happened yet or will be?  Not trolling, I'm actually being honest.

 

I think my posts in this topic are pretty straight-forward.

 

Your alliance has stated several times Rose was acting defensively in the last war, while Rose said no, we were offensive. And that's just one example.

We have never stated that Rose didn't attack Mensa.  You see the difference between acting in defense of someone and attacking an alliance right?  They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Placentica

[Ekaterina Kalmyk]

So are we all agreeing that the NAP, even conditional, would weaken the ability of t$ to defend its allies, because the conditions provided are entirely subjective?

 

*horrible eCongress flashbacks of trying to get Senators to agree on something incredibly simple*

 

...

 

Sorry, carry on. 

[Roy Mustang]

I thought you were on vacation?  I can't quite tell when/if that happened yet or will be?  Not trolling, I'm actually being honest.

 

I'll help you out. Partisan is presently on a road trip (Parti, go back and enjoy your road trip! ). When we were trying to figure out how to handle the alliance's FA while he was on the road trip, we made the decision as a government to turn his FA powers over to his second-in-command, Valakias, for the duration of his road trip. That way, regardless of his internet access (or lack thereof) during his trip, there would be continuity of leadership in FA, as opposed to Partisan possibly encountering multi-day absences and being unable to respond (and, as we are a triumvirate, possibly hobbling our decision making, such as signing potential peace terms).

 

Partisan will still be on this road trip until mid-June (June 10th? 15th? something like that, I'll double-check). Once he has officially returned, we'll make an OWF statement regarding that, as well as remove the note next to his name in all caps in our alliance description. Until then, Valakias has all the rights and authorities of the Chief Strategic Office (Head of FA) of tS.

 

Having answered that, you still haven't responded to either Partisan or my rebuttals. Decent shot at a diversion, though.

 

So I ask again, are we going to get a straight answer from you on either Partisan or my own detailed posts?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Roy Mustang

[Placentica]

Having answered that, you still haven't responded to either Partisan or my rebuttals. Decent shot at a diversion, though.

 

So I ask again, are we going to get a straight answer from you on either Partisan or my own detailed posts?

If you actually go back and re-read my posts you can see that I've responded to you. The thing is....this isn't a debate and I don't find those very productive with tS members anyway.

[Ivan the Red]

Idk why I even read this anymore. It's just the same thing over and over. Lol

 

hey accept peace

 

Give us NAP, we destroyed more

 

No NAP, we destroyed more

 

Kinda ridiculous to be honest. It sort of feels like two toddlers fighting over a cookie Lol

The point here is not about who did more damage, or who won the war (even Steve admits they have lost).

 

The point is that we are offering white peace, while Steve wants to extract terms from us.

 

And we will not give them. If he wants a concession from us, he will have to give us something in return.

 

Instead of offering us something back, he keeps attempting to get stuff for free from us by arguing how evil we are.

[Prefontaine]

If you actually go back and re-read my posts you can see that I've responded to you. The thing is....this isn't a debate and I don't find those very productive with tS members anyway.

even if you don't find it productive you owe it to your members to try and get peace in a war you've lost. You're fed up with them and they with you. It's time to have one of your allies step in and help negotiations. You've already lost 1 member to inactivity, and a few others left for other reasons. You refuse to peace without a nap for reasons. Syndicate won't give you a nap for reasons. Either you bring someone in to help the deadlock, give in, find a new alternative, or hope they get bored. Eventually you'll start losing members to quitting the alliance or even the game. Might take another month, might take several. Either way you're doing your members a disservice and stunting your future for not seeking other means to end this war.

 

Whether you believe me or not, a NAP is worthless. Your making your alliance suffer pointlessly. Be a leader and find a solution.

 

We have never stated that Rose didn't attack Mensa.  You see the difference between acting in defense of someone and attacking an alliance right?  They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Pretty sure your narrative last war was that Rose was acting in defense of themselves since in the last major war before that one they went at rose by going after their allies. It's how you validated joining their war since you had a non chaining treaty with them, unless you're saying you chained in to the war from Rose defending their paperless ally. I don't feel like digging through old threads to confirm. But it's just one of many examples of questionable aggression/defense that have happened for over a year now.