Jump to content

From the corner of a Dutch tavern...


Rache Olderen
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. More the senate isn't a puppet or a simple figurehead for the leader like it would be in some alliances. I don't control the Senate or what it decides. When it comes to declaring war and deciding treaties they have executive power. Which means they must be people who can think for themselves and produce their own opinions and that our democracy must be functional.

 

I will have you know our senate is the most powerful body in BK. Curu is really the Senates puppet, don't sub-tweet us like this Rache, I thought we were friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just happy to see one CS topic that didn't completely butcher the Bible.

Begone infidel!

 

 

Peace will never be accomplished without war, but war cannot happen without peace.... or something like that idk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as this was posted while I wasn't around, glad to be working with CS!

And for the record, the treaty was in the works before the war started, but the announcement got a little delayed by all the other events happening :P

 

o/ Acadia

o/ Cornerstone

  • Upvote 2

"They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays.

<Kastor> And laughs and shit.

<Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have you know our senate is the most powerful body in BK. Curu is really the Senates puppet, don't sub-tweet us like this Rache, I thought we were friends.

How times have changed, I remember the days when Lordstrum ruled with an iron fist and the senate just rubber stamped stuff  :v  :v

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as this was posted while I wasn't around, glad to be working with CS!

And for the record, the treaty was in the works before the war started, but the announcement got a little delayed by all the other events happening :P

 

o/ Acadia

o/ Cornerstone

Cant you post it the same time as your dow?

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how TKR talked shit about their own ally in this thread

You mean the ally who backstabbed them ?? 

 

Also nice to see people becoming friends after getting rolled by t$ so what's next ?? LOLedaeron-CS treaty ?? 

                                              aA9XUQZ.png                                                              



           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is signing Acadia a backstab or am I missing something?

declaring war on one of the closest ally of your ally without any sort of provocation is backstab :) [given that ally of ally and CS were part of one of the biggest econ project of orbis just 4 months ago] 

 

Not to mention they were part of the planning team which decided to attack on TKR and they knew it very well but sadly they decided to see their allies getting rolled. 

 

If this is not backstab I don't know what is :) 

Edited by Harry Potter
  • Upvote 1

                                              aA9XUQZ.png                                                              



           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

declaring war on one of the closest ally of your ally without any sort of provocation is backstab :) [given that ally of ally and CS were part of one of the biggest econ project of orbis just 4 months ago] 

 

The TI thing is scummy, imo, but ultimately CS doesn't owe t$ anything. Cornerstone was also directly involved on the planning of a hit on TKR, their ally, though.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TI thing is scummy, imo, but ultimately CS doesn't owe t$ anything. Cornerstone was also directly involved on the planning of a hit on TKR, their ally, though.

forgot mentioned that first time :P edited that post 

                                              aA9XUQZ.png                                                              



           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TI thing is scummy, imo, but ultimately CS doesn't owe t$ anything. Cornerstone was also directly involved on the planning of a hit on TKR, their ally, though.

TKR have been involved in the planning of a hit on their ally before.  Did you have an issue when your other allies were involved in planning hits on their allies since there are multiple instances or was it okay then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TKR have been involved in the planning of a hit on their ally before.  Did you have an issue when your other allies were involved in planning hits on their allies since there are multiple instances or was it okay then?

 

Using NPO-TKR as an example, at least? The honest answer is both. I do think they should have cancelled you before planning that war. But I also think there's differences because there wasn't a shared history in your treaty like there was with TKR-CS, and the communication went sour from the NPO end (imo) before they made that move.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using NPO-TKR as an example, at least? The honest answer is both. I do think they should have cancelled you before planning that war. But I also think there's differences because there wasn't a shared history in your treaty like there was with TKR-CS, and the communication went sour from the NPO end (imo) before they made that move.

BK-UPN would be another.  Again, it seems it was different when it was an alliance you had issues with and it benefited you and not okay when it didn't. That's a fairly regular pattern of thinking, but it may be good to remove your bias here. Who's to say CS-TKR communication didn't go sour? In either case, the allies in question saw themselves as being on opposing sides and it was a consequence of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TKR have been involved in the planning of a hit on their ally before.  Did you have an issue when your other allies were involved in planning hits on their allies since there are multiple instances or was it okay then?

Should have canceled you postwar but it would have been a PR hit either way, you would have spun it one way or another so we can agree to disagree. /shrug

 

I would argue the situations are different as well; you signed UPN, pushing you more and more towards Paracov even though we told you exactly what we thought of UPN and why you shouldn't do it. In this case with CS, they were the ones that signed away from us and also planned a hit on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK-UPN would be another.  Again, it seems it was different when it was an alliance you had issues with and it benefited you and not okay when it didn't. That's a fairly regular pattern of thinking, but it may be good to remove your bias here. Who's to say CS-TKR communication didn't go sour? In either case, the allies in question saw themselves as being on opposing sides and it was a consequence of that.

I would say our communication with CS was pretty good up until recently, we even took some steps to bring our membership closer together (even though it ultimately never got pushed through) so when you ask who's to say, I'm to say.

 

As far as BK-UPN, should have canceled that as soon as UPN hit us in 168 iirc

 

EDIT: Sorry, doublepost.

Edited by Lordship
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK-UPN would be another.  Again, it seems it was different when it was an alliance you had issues with and it benefited you and not okay when it didn't. That's a fairly regular pattern of thinking, but it may be good to remove your bias here. Who's to say CS-TKR communication didn't go sour? In either case, the allies in question saw themselves as being on opposing sides and it was a consequence of that.

 

I'm not under any pretense of removing my bias. People will have to read my comments for what they are, in that respect (still have the little forum pip, too!). I know more about one side of the argument, as an added handicap. :P

 

That said I do think there are differences. My detail memory is always hazy but didn't UPN hit t$ after signing that treaty, anyway? I'm honestly not certain about the communication level on that one which makes it hard to say.

 

I do have a fairly cut and dry way of looking at these things: if you plan to go against an ally's interests, tell them or cancel the treaty. But that doesn't seem to reconcile well with other people's idea of a political reality, so I tend to back off from it into a "give your allies no worse than what they give you" kind of pragmatism. Through those goggles, I did not have nearly as much of a problem with how BK treated UPN, or TKR treated NPO. I'd go as far as to say BK has a case against TKR this war (I don't know much about that one aside from what's been shown on this forum, whereas I was involved in more of the t$-BK interactions firsthand), but not against t$ or Mensa.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should have canceled you postwar but it would have been a PR hit either way, you would have spun it one way or another so we can agree to disagree. /shrug

 

I would argue the situations are different as well; you signed UPN, pushing you more and more towards Paracov even though we told you exactly what we thought of UPN and why you shouldn't do it. In this case with CS, they were the ones that signed away from us and also planned a hit on us.

 

 

Well, you were given the rationale for why we did it. We had no reason to believe TKR would be able to defend us  in any scenario after you backed a hit on our ally that would have drawn us in and we decided we needed other allies that wouldn't have those issues.

 

About them signing away from you, in fact, I'm 100% sure it was you who told them that you wouldn't side with them or go neutral in any potential conflict when it was asked as you saw Syndisphere as your priority.

I would say our communication with CS was pretty good up until recently, we even took some steps to bring our membership closer together (even though it ultimately never got pushed through) so when you ask who's to say, I'm to say.

 

As far as BK-UPN, should have canceled that as soon as UPN hit us in 168 iirc

 

EDIT: Sorry, doublepost.

 

I think the recently part is the key word here.

 

The thing is, you're using this distinction of "It should have been cancelled anyway" to make it okay in some instances and not in others.  We're not going to agree on that.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.