Eumirbago Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 "Article 1 says mutual defense. Both signatories agree to defend each other in the event one is subject to an aggressive attack" No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hitchcock Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 No Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyvbuck Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Yes You just opened a big can of spam worms, lets hope someone can close it before this gets out of hand lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Yes That's not the answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ole Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I appreciate the thought out response and what appears to be the biggest issue is that TKR blatantly violated the agreement they signed with NPO. Regardless of how TKR felt, they were bound by their own signatures. Are you telling me they didn't violate their M-Level treaty? This is a yes or no question- and most certainly a basis for upset parties. Clearly not as bound as you hoped. The improtant thing now is that you learn to let go of things, like you'r pixels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan the Red Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 No matter how much time passes and how much things change, signing with NPO always ends up leading to this sort of thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I appreciate the thought out response and what appears to be the biggest issue is that TKR blatantly violated the agreement they signed with NPO. Regardless of how TKR felt, they were bound by their own signatures. Are you telling me they didn't violate their M-Level treaty? This is a yes or no question- and most certainly a basis for upset parties. I'm going to ask again, Where were all of you when Alpha was getting rolled? You were bound to defend Alpha (not sure if NPO was tied to them at that point but other people were). So NPO, either were tied to them and are being hipocritical OR you're allied to people tied to then who are also, I guess, backstabbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 We were allied to Alpha but Alpha told us to stay out. That's why it's difficult to be too upset with this outcome since if we had engaged tS, it'd be the same situation with BK swarming us and us taking heavy damages just like now.I don't think listening to Alpha's wishes constitutes a violation of the treaty. We were prepared to defend Alpha up until the point they said they were going it alone, which came after several days of deliberation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I've been on actual vacation for all of this and was told five pages ago I should come shitpost. I didn't get that message until just now, so I decided to read this thread. I'm honestly disappointed. I didn't expect NPO to go to shit this fast once Jas wasn't in charge. They want us to break our vows to two alliances we've been blood brothers with for over a year, for a treaty that they clearly didn't have any decency to honor themselves if it were on the other foot? They don't tell us anything, insult our members, and intentionally ally the other sphere knowing full well that we're going to have a conflict in the future, and they want us to betray our allies in favor of theirs so they can win a war they've been scheming about for months? Really? And AlmightyGrub posting a bunch of sanctimonous holier-than-thou bullshit? Again? What year is it? I can't even shitpost. You've all made goddamn joke of yourselves enough. Really? You actively insult us and scheme against our older, friendliest allies who we have fought with before and yet when we refuse to go along with your plans against our closest friends we're the treacherous ones? And you want to talk about being bad at this? Maybe you should take a look in the mirror. This isn't the old game, boy. This is a new one, and you're not the goddamn kings anymore. Nobody's going to kowtow to you out of fear of that name over here. Better start getting used to it. edit: alright fellas good old hospital opiates are kicking in, i'm out. deuces Savage! I love it when people emulate their real life historical namesakes 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 We were allied to Alpha but Alpha told us to stay out. That's why it's difficult to be too upset with this outcome since if we had engaged tS, it'd be the same situation with BK swarming us and us taking heavy damages just like now.I don't think listening to Alpha's wishes constitutes a violation of the treaty. We were prepared to defend Alpha up until the point they said they were going it alone, which came after several days of deliberation. I'm sorry, but when I read the treaty between you and Alpha, I can't seem to find an exception that says "if one party does not want the help, the other party does not hAve to help." Oh and I remember hearing somewhere that Alpha did indeed try to get help from her allies, but the lack of support led them to just going in alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I'm sorry, but when I read the treaty between you and Alpha, I can't seem to find an exception that says "if one party does not want the help, the other party does not hAve to help." Oh and I remember hearing somewhere that Alpha did indeed try to get help from her allies, but the lack of support led them to just going in alone. It's the spirit of the treaty. If neither party considers it broken, it wasn't broken. Well, I'm only speaking for NPO and Steve would be able to confirm we were willing to defend Alpha up to the point he made his decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It's the spirit of the treaty. If neither party considers it broken, it wasn't broken. Well, I'm only speaking for NPO and Steve would be able to confirm we were willing to defend Alpha up to the point he made his decision. Where does it say that anywhere? A treaty is a treaty, and according to the NPO guys on this thread, a treaty must be followed no matter the external circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 We were allied to Alpha but Alpha told us to stay out. That's why it's difficult to be too upset with this outcome since if we had engaged tS, it'd be the same situation with BK swarming us and us taking heavy damages just like now.I don't think listening to Alpha's wishes constitutes a violation of the treaty. We were prepared to defend Alpha up until the point they said they were going it alone, which came after several days of deliberation. Did you inform tkr of your potential aggression to tS during the opening of the alpha conquest? Technically you should've told them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Where does it say that anywhere? A treaty is a treaty, and according to the NPO guys on this thread, a treaty must be followed no matter the external circumstances. Don't remember anyone with official standing saying that and there's a difference between something mutually agreed upon and only one partner abrogating terms. Did you inform tkr of your potential aggression to tS during the opening of the alpha conquest? Technically you should've told them. Um, we said we'd have to defend Alpha, so yes. Nice try, though. Edited June 17, 2016 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It's the spirit of the treaty. If neither party considers it broken, it wasn't broken. Well, I'm only speaking for NPO and Steve would be able to confirm we were willing to defend Alpha up to the point he made his decision. So in that case Alpha did indeed break its treaty with tS in the last war by virtue of breaking the spirit of the treaty. It's broken because t$ considers it broken. It's always enjoyable to see universal agreement on controversial matters despite political affiliations. Thank you Roq, for your honesty . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 So in that case Alpha did indeed break its treaty with tS in the last war by virtue of breaking the spirit of the treaty. It's broken because t$ considers it broken. It's always enjoyable to see universal agreement on controversial matters despite political affiliations. Thank you Roq, for your honesty . Stop making false equivalences, mutual agreement on activation or non-activation is evidently different from two parties not in agreement on the application of a particular clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Stop making false equivalences, mutual agreement on activation or non-activation is evidently different from two parties not in agreement on the application of a particular clause. Wholly besides which, the Syndicate later attacked Alpha for what they saw as betrayal. While the situations are not exactly cognate, I am not entirely certain that's the most productive precedent to bring to the fore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Wholly besides which, the Syndicate later attacked Alpha for what they saw as betrayal. While the situations are not exactly cognate, I am not entirely certain that's the most productive precedent to bring to the fore.Except we didn't attack Alpha for their betrayal (that was our reason for cancelling the treaty). We attacked Alpha for actively plotting our downfall and blatantly working to organize a coalition against us. Partisan's point was that our cancellation of the Alpha-t$ treaty, and the sentiment behind that action, was validated by Roq's point (ie: it was a legitimate betrayal of our trust and the spirit of our treaty and hence we were right to view it as such and cancel on Alpha). And on that matter, at least TKR didn't blatantly lie and promise NPO it wouldn't get involved just to get involved a week later (like Alpha did). The war that followed is a completely separate (though inarguably connected) subject. Edit: To get back on subject. Even if you take that precedent and apply it to the NPO-TKR treaty I don't see how there is any betrayal. There is no shared intelligence clause. There is no clause limiting TKR's ability to strike NPO's allies, nor any promise of such restraint issued for that matter. While there is a Mutual Defense clause, that would have been activated in any other instance, there are critical treaty conflicts which completely limit TKR's ability to respond. The "spirit of the treaty" argument holds water because it is dealing with subjective feelings, relationships, and expectations and I can't exactly blame NPO for being disappointed but I also don't understand how they honestly expected The Knights Radiant to sell out longstanding, historical relationships such as the Obsidian Order, the Black Knights, and even the Syndicate in favor of NPO. Edited June 17, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented 2 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Wholly besides which, the Syndicate later attacked Alpha for what they saw as betrayal. While the situations are not exactly cognate, I am not entirely certain that's the most productive precedent to bring to the fore. Please view wilhelm's post: Alpha was hit for actively plotting against us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Just out of curiosity where is Guardian's declaration of war on VE? I cant find it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Just out of curiosity where is Guardian's declaration of war on VE? I cant find it! Must have gotten lost somewhere in all the confusion of them wrecking your shit. 1 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Stop making false equivalences, mutual agreement on activation or non-activation is evidently different from two parties not in agreement on the application of a particular clause. No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 So let's take the time to welcome NPO to the VE/Rose/UPN sphere. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 So let's take the time to welcome NPO to the VE/Rose/UPN sphere. Welcome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 What's more honorable in this case, defending NPO, an alliance who clearly was attempting to use this MDP as a political ploy so they could !@#$ over our bloc-mates and blood brothers, or defending T$ and BK, who we've fought, bled, and won for for over a year? What's more honorable, stabbing our longest-lived allies in the back for the sake of a treaty that has only ever existed for the machinations of NPO rather than any sense of common bond or decency, or publicly declaring that we value real friendship and actual alliances over a paper that was only even intended to !@#$ us over in the long run? Oh, right. You're from Rose. I wouldn't expect you to know a damn thing about honor. The only thing you carried over from 2015 was knowing how to shit the bed at wartime. defending NPO, an alliance who clearly was attempting to use this MDP as a political ploy so they could !@#$ over our bloc-mates and blood brothers, or defending T$ and BK, who we've fought, bled, and won for for over a year? The honorable choice would be not to sign the treaty in the first place if you never intended to uphold it. The amount of spin in this thread is amazing. What you did was definitely the correct move politically, but trying to pretend your somehow still honorable is a joke. I'm not defending NPO either, frankly you guys got what you deserved for whoring yourselves out and offering treaties to anyone who would take it. Also that snappy comment about Rose might apply better if I was in Rose in 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.