The Knights Radiant Declaration of War

[Eumirbago]

Yeah, you did. You signed with UPN/VE/Alpha. You even slandered our name on the OOC forum because one of our members had a bad opinion of your second in command.

 

You even tried to fish us for information when BK started arming up lmfao, I cannot believe I ever thought you had a solid head on your shoulders. Where is Jas when you need her?

 

Lmao this can be spun in so many ways based on the nature of the war. Are we not honoring our defensive treaty obligation by hitting VE? I honestly am baffled that you expect us to hit BK/tS who have had our backs in our whole year of existence. Also, our bloc supersedes all other treaties.

 

Shhhhhh don't tell them lmfao

[Charles Bolivar]

Numbers do not concern us. Doing the right thing does.

 

The wrong thing to do was to begin plotting against us and not expect repercussions. 

 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Charles the Tyrant

[Lordship]

ITT people trying to smear TKR for defending their allies.

 

I'll always love you guys TKR. You've proven to be loyal allies and great friends over the course of our relationship.

Bruh I put up with strum just so I can be allied to you (jk love you strum) you my boy dude I got you fam

[Apeman]

I admire TKR for their honor and doing what needs to happen. I hope the future sees BK defending TKR when they need it.

[Roquentin]

Lordship: Alpha and VE were signed at the same time as your treaty. If you had an issue with those, then that was the time to voice it.  Given your member is gov and had to walk his opinion back after all, I'm not really sure this is a valid line of though. Evidently it wasn't as innocent as you describe. You had plenty of time to sort it out before it was raised publicly at all.

 

 

It's ironic given all the past complaints about "backstabbing" that you complain when an ally expects to be told if your other ally is planning to hit them or not. You also have reversed the chronological order in you denying BK was going to hit us and anything being said in public about a TKR gov member storming into a topic and agreeing with an over the top tirade. Important to highlight is you were asked about it before the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) topic went up and waved it off and militarization continued. You're just playing the game and you picked a side and that's cool. I don't really care.

 

 

 

 

The wrong thing to do was to begin plotting against us and not expect repercussions. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're still doing this? We don't really care about your opinion.  NPO was about passive as possible until the militarization on your side started and this was going to be the same outcome as us defending Alpha a month back, except it would have been even worse then so meh. Facts have been presented and you have continued to ignore them in favor of this narrative. None of us are complaining about the outcome just the justification. You keep trying to spin this when your own leadership doesn't even try this hard anymore. Is it a matter of testing how much bullshit you can put out with a straight face?

[Auctor]

Yeah, you did. You signed with UPN/VE/Alpha. You even slandered our name on the OOC forum because one of our members had a bad opinion of your second in command.

You suck at spinning this if you really think we're just going to be collectively blind to yall starting that and not us. If we want to play the OOC game, maybe your guy shouldn't've gone after Roq for OOC shit.

 

You even tried to fish us for information when BK started arming up lmfao, I cannot believe I ever thought you had a solid head on your shoulders. Where is Jas when you need her?

The nerve of those NPO guys for thinking that communication between signatories about threats would be part of having a treaty with an alliance. Always trying to reinvent the !@#$ing wheel!

[Eumirbago]

You suck at spinning this if you really think we're just going to be collectively blind to yall starting that and not us. If we want to play the OOC game, maybe your guy shouldn't've gone after Roq for OOC shit.

 

The nerve of those NPO guys for thinking that communication between signatories about threats would be part of having a treaty with an alliance. Always trying to reinvent the !@#$ wheel!

 

Shhhhhhhhhhh don't worry fam, stick to wasting steel

[Charles Bolivar]

 

You're still doing this? We don't really care about your opinion.  NPO was about passive as possible until the militarization on your side started and this was going to be the same outcome as us defending Alpha a month back, except it would have been even worse then so meh. Facts have been presented and you have continued to ignore them in favor of this narrative. None of us are complaining about the outcome just the justification. You keep trying to spin this when your own leadership doesn't even try this hard anymore. Is it a matter of testing how much bullshit you can put out with a straight face?

 

If you don't care about my opinion then quit responding. Or feel free to keep posting constant drivel, either way it is inconsequential.

 

You plotted against us, made common cause with our historical rivals and got slapped down as an enemy. Not really a great leap of logic to establish the link between your plotting and politicking and what has occurred as a direct result of your own actions.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Charles the Tyrant

[Roquentin]

If you don't care about my opinion then quit responding. Or feel free to keep posting constant drivel, either way it is inconsequential.

 

You plotted against us, made common cause with our historical rivals and got slapped down as an enemy. Not really a great leap of logic to establish the link between your plotting and politicking and what has occurred as a direct result of your own actions.

Yeah, I think with this response I'm just going to put you on ignore. Please feel free to continue the masturbatory nonsense. My browsing experience is about to improve tenfold.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin

[Azaghul]

The wrong thing to do was to begin plotting against us and not expect repercussions. 

 

Regardless of the context, I love this graphic.

[Keshaun1222]

As a matter of fact - yes, we would honor our defensive treaty obligations over and above enabling our other allies to carry out an unwarranted aggressive war.

You say that now, but we'll see when it actually happens.

 

NPO is crying about us "no upholding our MDP" and wants us to break our NAP with t$ and BK for them? That's illogical. You expect us to turn on our long time allies in the Syndicate and Black Knights for our newer allies? Lol! Comedy gold!

 

Think what you want. We'll just keep it pushing, and keep doing what we feel is best.

[Lordship]

You suck at spinning this if you really think we're just going to be collectively blind to yall starting that and not us. If we want to play the OOC game, maybe your guy shouldn't've gone after Roq for OOC shit.

 

The nerve of those NPO guys for thinking that communication between signatories about threats would be part of having a treaty with an alliance. Always trying to reinvent the !@#$ wheel!

Not sure where it says we have to tell you every action our allies take

 

 

Lordship: Alpha and VE were signed at the same time as your treaty. If you had an issue with those, then that was the time to voice it.  Given your member is gov and had to walk his opinion back after all, I'm not really sure this is a valid line of though. Evidently it wasn't as innocent as you describe. You had plenty of time to sort it out before it was raised publicly at all.

 

 

It's ironic given all the past complaints about "backstabbing" that you complain when an ally expects to be told if your other ally is planning to hit them or not. You also have reversed the chronological order in you denying BK was going to hit us and anything being said in public about a TKR gov member storming into a topic and agreeing with an over the top tirade. Important to highlight is you were asked about it before the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) topic went up and waved it off and militarization continued. You're just playing the game and you picked a side and that's cool. I don't really care.

At the time, a level headed player was in your position now. I think it would have been a much different conversation if you were in government then, even more if you were Regent.

 

He's low econ gov, hardly a giant of FA in our alliance. Are you serious?

 

Before which (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) topic? For Steve or you actively recruiting against tS on NPO's boards?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this.

 

Finally got to scratch my OWF itch

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lordship

[Azaghul]

It was apparent to us, and should have been apparent to NPO, that we'd end up on opposite sides if another war occurred between our allies in Syndicate/BK/etc. and their allies in VE/UPN/etc.  That was always a strong possibility.  And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as both of us were willing to accept that possible outcome, but still be ready to work together in case things turn out differently and the "sides" change, or to work with each other in other ways.

Alliances often end up in situations where most of their treaties put them on the opposite side of one or two of their other treaties.  It has happened before and it will happen again, it's just the nature of how treaty webs work.

[Auctor]

If this had been a simple matter of competing interests, that'd've been one thing. TKR Leadership repeatedly lying to our faces when concerns were raised and actively joining a war started directly against us makes this another.

[Lordship]

If this had been a simple matter of competing interests, that'd've been one thing. TKR Leadership repeatedly lying to our faces when concerns were raised and actively joining a war started directly against us makes this another.

Oh the hypocrisy in this statement.

 

We are interested in seeing that BK/tS don't get rolled.

You are interested in consolidating with UPN/VE/Alpha and actively recruiting against tS

 

Are these not conflicting interests? You expect us to tell you that BK is gonna hit you so that you can then run to your allies and wreck our coalition?

 

What do I know though, I'm just trash

Edited June 15, 2016 by Lordship

[Auctor]

If you hadn't wanted BK and tS to get rolled, a radical solution may have been to talk them out of declaring war on your supposed "ally". At least that way, you would look as if you had a leg to stand on.

 

Are we really living in a world where just recruiting is a crime? Good Lord.

[Roquentin]

Not sure where it says we have to tell you every action our allies take

 

 

At the time, a level headed player was in your position now. I think it would have been a much different conversation if you were in government then, even more if you were Regent.

 

He's low econ gov, hardly a giant of FA in our alliance. Are you serious?

 

Before which (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) topic? For Steve or you actively recruiting against tS on NPO's boards?

 

Anyway, I'm done with this.

 

Finally got to scratch my OWF itch

 

I don't really think she would have responded too much differently to getting threatened over (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) stuff, frankly and she had wanted to defend Alpha, so insulting me doesn't really help you here.

 

 

Again, this was the response you guys had: I merely responded to Azaghul not even by name and IC came into defend him, meaning it was the highest position in your alliance defending it and insulting me. It was never cleared up until Azaghul was actually called out and even then he was only actually called out when I made a reference to it in passing and IC challenged me on it.

 

The recruiting topic, of course since that's the major evidence used against us. You said BK totally wouldn't hit us even though they continued bulking before that and other sources were telling us they were going to hit us. Of course we were going to recruit in the face of aggression by tS at that point since we were under the impression we were getting hit by them which wasn't far off. 

Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin

[greatkitteh]

So? BK aggressively attacked NPO so your MDP does trigger, it doesn't matter what the chain clause is - it's straight aggression and you avoided honoring your treaty with them.

 

Nice job backstabbing NPO in support of OOC reasons. Congrats.

Well BK itself ignored Mensa and that one elitist alliance I Forgot (Not TS the whote guys) Edited June 15, 2016 by greatkitteh

[AlmightyGrub]

You say that now, but we'll see when it actually happens.

 

NPO is crying about us "no upholding our MDP" and wants us to break our NAP with t$ and BK for them? That's illogical. You expect us to turn on our long time allies in the Syndicate and Black Knights for our newer allies? Lol! Comedy gold!

 

Think what you want. We'll just keep it pushing, and keep doing what we feel is best.

 

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.

[Prefonteen]

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.

 

 

 

Would you not agree that that is in large part a self-fulfilling prophecy? We equally reached out across the 'divide' over the past months and instead saw a consolidation occur that to us, could be interpreted as nothing but the foundation of what would in the future be a rival coalition (if only by virtue of the tangled web of treaties between these alliances). One could argue that it is the treaties which caused the perceived threat which drove us to war. One could also argue the opposite and say that you did indeed huddle together out of fear for us going to war with you, and that therefore your claim is proven.

 

It's a chicken or egg situation: I'd argue that both may be correct. You may have huddled together in part out of fear for us. And we in turn felt threatened, which led us to take action.

 

One is not mutually exclusive to the other. I'm not sure if that however, is considered an inherently bad thing. Moreso a logical consequence/reaction.

[Prefonteen]

If this had been a simple matter of competing interests, that'd've been one thing. TKR Leadership repeatedly lying to our faces when concerns were raised and actively joining a war started directly against us makes this another.

 

Well if that's how you feel, I have but one thing to say:

 

Welcome to The Syndicate's world in pretty much every war over the past 1.5 year. 

 

I share your pain.

[Canik]

Meh, if TKR is in a MADP bloc with BK I can understand supporting them due to obligation. Though most of the other arguments in defense of TKR seem questionable. NPO has only been acting defensively, all BK/tS had to do to not be rolled was to not attack us.. and even then, it seems they might win. Some threat we are. xD

[Lordship]

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.

Did you just quote a 12 day nation who is clearly new to the game and then tell him how shit of an alliance TKR is? Pretty disrespectful considering we have had nothing but good relations with you guys.

 

 

"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."

- https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/11274-imperial-decree-of-the-new-pacific-order-the-knights-radiant-mdoap/Take it at face value, where does it say we have to share that information with them?

 

 

"I don't expect them to suggest that some other treaty now takes precedence over the one I hold."

- Our bloc takes precedent over every other treaty. Are you suggesting that we declare war on our treaty partners?

 

"There are times when there are clearly conflicts"

- Like right now in this situation.

 

"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"

- Too hard? What's too hard? Hitting our bloc mates/MD treaty partners? Damn we're definitely an untrustworhy pile of shit.

 

"Posting horse shit comments like yours show a clear mindset, it is not one of honour or respect."

- Man, you're a big shot! Look at me, I've been playing nation simulators since before you were born! I know you're new to the game but !@#$ it I'm gonna reign all hell down on you. What sort of mind set is it if it's so clear?

[Sam Hinkie]

"Mandatory defending someone doesn't mean telling them when you know they will be attacked and you will do nothing to help them."

 

I feel like this is a statement I can agree with, although perhaps not for the same reasons.  Then again, maybe my beliefs don't fit in here; I'm still pretty new.

[Placentica]

Well if that's how you feel, I have but one thing to say:

 

Welcome to The Syndicate's world in pretty much every war over the past 1.5 year. 

 

I share your pain.

Yes, you were the victim when you supported Mensa's unprovoked attacks on Vanguard...twice.  You were the victim when you attacked Alpha and of course you were the victim when you attacked NPO and had your allies burn 3 allies to start yet another aggressive war.