The Knights Radiant Declaration of War

[Auctor]

Given one of our supposed lapses is literally asking Lordship whether it was true BK was going to hit us as various sources were telling us, I'm not sure how us communicating more was supposed to help.

[Aksel]

Then why ally them?

 

........shut your dirty mouth alataq. #TLFstillnotrelevant

 

-snippety mo'fuggin snip x all your posts-

 

Its politics & war bruh. Politics means signing treaties/agreements and working toward a goal......a goal which sometimes doesn't work out. The non-chain MDoAP could have been a way to move towards a new goal, but that didn't happen. Get your head out of your ass. 

 

#realtalk

 

 

We have NAPs with everyone who hit NPO

 

I didn't hit NPO, but could we still nap together?

[Goomy]

Have fun out the TKR, ignore the haters

[Guest Rin]

We have no interest in you just passing whatever we say to tS to be used against us and it was clear we were probably TOO communicative in the lead up with our concerns rather than too little. 

 

And no, I don't expect anyone to declare on their treaty partner. The deceptiveness is one thing, the indignation you exhibit is another.

 

Now I don't have access to secret gov conversations, but there was little hint from BK/tS either. We were like "Hey, what? Why is BK militarizing? Who are they going to hit?" And then we threatened to cut off IC's balls if he didn't get us into whatever war BK was in on.

 

We figured it out after realizing that tS just posted a CB on NPO and BK was suspiciously not talking to us about why they were militarizing. No deceptive intent. This lack of communication goes with allies on both sides.

[Linus Vulp]

 it was true BK was going to hit us as various sources were telling us

Actually, a long time most of BK would have rather hit GPA than NPO. From the membership i am the only one who always propagated you as my favourite target  

Cant speak for the gov forum though

[Yosodog]

We started building up due to a credible threat against us and if that didn't pan out we were gonna roll GPA. Shit changed though.

[Kid Winchell]

"To drive us out"

 

I have yet to see anyone confirm the goal is to drive NPO out. That is purely detrimental to the game.

 

No alliance has been driven out and there's been plenty of opportunity for it to happen.

 

Most likely you'll get a white peace offer when the war itch is done scratched. Just like every other war the past few wars.

 

Suck it up, buckle down, and enjoy the ride of being set back.

Can confirm.

[jaguar]

Oh wow. I never expected this from TKR, I guess there's first time for everything

[Milord]

Aux armed cityoens

That's French for something

[Woot]

We started building up due to a credible threat against us and if that didn't pan out we were gonna roll GPA. Shit changed though.

 

[Charles Bolivar]

Where was this said? 

 

But when the most aggressive alliance in PnW tries to say it's the victim, that's going to make people laugh.

 You made it pretty clear last night before you kicked a host of us from #alpha

 

Plus, we are refusing to be the eventual victim in your sphere's plotting. Hence the declarations of war. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Charles the Tyrant

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Way to dodge my post like you dodged your defensive obligations to NPO.

 

Who are you to talk about dodging when you lied shamelessly about Mensa paying Arrgh to raid NPO in the previous war and weren't man enough to own them up and apologize? This is like North Korea blaming other countries for not being democratic enough.

[Charles Bolivar]

[Boony]

LOL. To all you treaty !@#$, where were you when Alpha was getting rolled? I didn't see their allies coming in and their treaties say that their allies must defend them.

 

Oh but right. Treaties are only law on our side. Yeah.

[Roquentin]

We started building up due to a credible threat against us and if that didn't pan out we were gonna roll GPA. Shit changed though.

 

What credible threat?

 

Like seriously, who was going to hit you?

Now I don't have access to secret gov conversations, but there was little hint from BK/tS either. We were like "Hey, what? Why is BK militarizing? Who are they going to hit?" And then we threatened to cut off IC's balls if he didn't get us into whatever war BK was in on.

 

We figured it out after realizing that tS just posted a CB on NPO and BK was suspiciously not talking to us about why they were militarizing. No deceptive intent. This lack of communication goes with allies on both sides.

 

 

You're cool and all Rin and i don't have any issues with you, but yeah you're not gov, so I don't think it was that much of a mystery to them.

[Charles Bolivar]

LOL. To all you treaty !@#$, where were you when Alpha was getting rolled? I didn't see their allies coming in and their treaties say that their allies must defend them.

 

Oh but right. Treaties are only law on our side. Yeah.

 

Nailed it.

[MrHat]

We started building up due to a credible threat against us and if that didn't pan out we were gonna roll GPA. Shit changed though.

I demand proof of this bs

[Eumirbago]

I demand proof of this bs

It's over there at the end of the rainbow!

[Foltest]

I demand proof of this bs

 

Everyone was building up, so we were also building up.

 

 

It doesn't even need a deeper reason.

[Goomy]

Perhaps everyone should stop spending so much time calling out other people for not following treaties, and spend more time ensuring that they communicate with their own allies and adhere to their own treaties instead... 

[Keshaun1222]

Actually it is even simpler than that champ.  When you sign a treaty, you sign that treaty as it reads and as it stands.  If you want exclusions and rankings you should really make that clear, if you don't an alliance is entitled to take the treaty at face value.  The treaty standard is pretty simple and most alliances follow very simple templates.  It is not a case for e-lawyering or tampering, nor is it a piece of toilet paper.  In case this situation arises again I will try to make it simple for you.

 

The key clause in every treaty is in relation to defense.  If I am attacked I expect that the people who have previously, and under no obligation or duress, agreed to defend me actually do that.  I don't expect them to suggest that due to a desire to kill someone else that our treaty should be voided.  I don't expect them to suggest that some other treaty now takes precedence over the one I hold.  The length of time I have held it is not a validation or invalidation of the treaty.  If you don't like the obligations of a treaty and all that entails, don't sign it.  Once you have you have made a commitment.

 

There are times when there are clearly conflicts, such as the situation BK placed Polaris in.  At these times it is best to dissolve the treaty before moving forwards, but it is also clear that neither BK or Polaris had actually been attacked when the treaty was cancelled.  If we had been attacked then I would have rightfully expected BK to honour their commitment.  I may not have expected them to hit an old and direct ally of theirs but I would expect them to do more than laugh at me, tell me to !@#$ off and leave me to it.  I didn't force them to make the commitment, it was a mutual agreement.  When you fail to honour your treaty because you think it is too hard you truly show what a worthless, untrustworthy pile of shit your alliance is.  Allies assisting each other by helping protect them from aggressive actions pre DOW is acceptable, lying to your treaty partner and selling them off for 30 pieces of silver, maybe not so much.  Posting horse shit comments like yours show a clear mindset, it is not one of honour or respect.

 

So we have today been shown the clear lines on Orbis, newcomer alliances who reached out across the divide and signed treaties in good faith with new partners have pretty much been shown that there is no possible future for friendships across the divide.  That is fine, you complain about us huddling together, then in one fell swoop prove exactly why we were right to in the first place.  If you thought we would remain an uncohesive rabble forever and you could have your way continually, pay us some scant regard by signing a few random treaties here and there, but today you have show that your heart doesnt lie in the treaties you sign but rather in the side you perceive you belong to.  I understand and I am not at all critical of you for adopting that position, but please stop pretending that I therefore have any alternatives than the people I know.

 

 I am not at all sure what value you place on your agreements any longer.  My treaty is my word and even at the risk of total and utter defeat and destruction I will honour it, you seem to place a different value on your word.  Toeach their own, I understand your position, I trust you will understand mine.

You expect us to uphold our treaty and in doing so, violate two other treaties? That sounds a lot like BS to me. 

 

You speak of "honoring our treaties", but that's what we're doing. We have NAPs with t$, BK, and NPO. While we do indeed have a MDP with NPO, what are we suppose to do in this situation? Say "!@#$ out NAP with t$ and BK?" That would be contradicting what you're saying, Grub. Seems to me like you don't really care about honoring a treaty if the treaty doesn't benefit you.

 

"Worthless, untrustworthy pile of shit" Lol. Why is it that only the losing side of the conflict sees us as such? Sounds like crying.

 

From this comment you've made, you clearly DON'T understand our position, but like you said, "To each their own."

Edited June 15, 2016 by Keshaun1222

[Milord]

You expect us to uphold our treaty and in doing so, violate two other treaties? That sounds a lot like BS to me. 

 

You speak of "honoring our treaties", but that's what we're doing. We have NAPs with t$, BK, and NPO. While we do indeed have a MDP with NPO, what are we suppose to do in this situation? Say "!@#$ out NAP with t$ and BK?" That would be contradicting what you're saying, Grub. Seems to me like you don't really care about honoring a treaty if the treaty doesn't benefit you.

 

"Worthless, untrustworthy pile of shit" Lol. Why is it that only the losing side of the conflict sees us as such? Sounds like crying.

 

From this comment you've made, you clearly DON'T understand our position, but like you said, "To each their own."

[Drogo]

I have been having this itch to write some sht in this forum for quite a while now, but never really got the balls, but now

 

 

AYY LMAO

[Floating Hippo]

I love that pic. 

[Jgoods101]

I don't think I remember a time when alliances were berated for not hitting an alliance they were allied to. It's as if there's some sort of supremacy clause hidden somewhere within the text and only one side knows about it. But whatever, reading through these topics is a good time killer.