Prefonteen Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Epi said: Morning As for the extension thing, we are, we were for the past week of our existence and i blame [not me] for editing the page and deleting that instead of Pantheon. ? Cheers guys, i appreciate the support and Air strikes xD Hey Epi, long time. So.. you deleted it by accident. Pantheon cancelled its protectorate on the 3rd, correct? Does that mean you deleted the "An attack on us is an attack on Camelot" blip somewhere between the snapshot of the google cache and the addition of the new post-hit version? Meaning you were without that protection note for perhaps a day or so? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, hope said: it's reasonable to assume that Camelot would call in BK if SG has an MD tie with them That would be a more fair argument if it were the case, but the treaty between Camelot and SG had been edited to become an extension, when during the entire situation it had been an MD tie. If the edit had been made publicly and beforehand, this wouldn't be an issue, but as it is Camelot is looking awfully scummy for changing that retroactively and hoping nobody would notice. Same with BK for trying to use it as an excuse to lawyer around treaty chess. As it is, they really could have just kept it as it was and argued exactly as you have and there wouldn't be the same kind of confusion. I mean, come the frick on BK. An irrelevant micro threatened you. That's more than enough CB. Don't piss about with retroactive treaty changes, if you want the war then declare it! 8 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Hey Epi, long time. So.. you deleted it by accident. Pantheon cancelled its protectorate on the 3rd, correct? Does that mean you deleted the "An attack on us is an attack on Camelot" blip somewhere between the snapshot of the google cache and the addition of the new post-hit version? Meaning you were without that protection note for perhaps a day or so? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it wasn't still there and just paperless ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited September 4, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 728 Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 38 minutes ago, Pheonix said:  WE ARE THE ACK KNIGHTS also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Epi said: I mean, the MDoAP signifies that's the case anyway and if you look at the Camelot page you'll still see we're listed as apart of their Government. The info embed on their Discord server also includes "Powered by S;G" [and includes us in their government] & Pantheon was informed of the relationship prior. +Gov members on both our Discord servers retain gov rank or admin access. It was extremely clear we were apart of a unique relationship. Dark brotherhood even raised it as a point of discussion earlier this week in the Pnw recruitment chat [and in Dms]. Oh and S;G has spoken on behalf of Camelot and Camelot on behalf of S;G several times over the past week relating to raids etc [+ grants were sent from the S;G bank]. In reference to this same relationship. We're an extension of Camelot. That much is beyond clear. But it *wasn't* on the page. Is it possible that AK looked at SG and thought "ISOLATED RAID TARGET" without having paid attention to your recruitment thread etc.? While i'm not going to comment much on the validity of their raid, the page was cited extensively to justify BK's intervention. Now that justification appears to be nonexistent. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Hatter Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 Verbal Warning to everyone. No more filter evading. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 729 Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 40 minutes ago, hope said: it's reasonable to assume that Camelot would call in BK if SG has an MD tie with them Ah, yes. The classic FA move. Retroactively claim protection over an AA to feign defense instead of just admitting you're helping your fumbling protectorate play World Police, while ignoring standard diplomatic practices entirely. How did no one see this coming?! 3 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheonix Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Wilhelm the Demented said: Ah, yes. The classic FA move. Retroactively claim protection over an AA to feign defense instead of just admitting you're helping your fumbling protectorate play World Police, while ignoring standard diplomatic practices entirely. How did no one see this coming?! Let me direct you back to epi's post 23 minutes ago, Epi said: I mean, the MDoAP signifies that's the case anyway and if you look at the Camelot page you'll still see we're listed as apart of their Government. The info embed on their Discord server also includes "Powered by S;G" [and includes us in their government] & Pantheon was informed of the relationship prior. +Gov members on both our Discord servers retain gov rank or admin access. It was extremely clear we were apart of a unique relationship. Dark brotherhood even raised it as a point of discussion earlier this week in the Pnw recruitment chat [and in Dms]. Oh and S;G has spoken on behalf of Camelot and Camelot on behalf of S;G several times over the past week relating to raids etc [+ grants were sent from the S;G bank]. In reference to this same relationship. We're an extension of Camelot. That much is beyond clear. 11 minutes ago, Epi said: One member of S;G made a mistake for approx 3-4 hours. The treaty still existed, the statement was there for a week and two direct allies of Afrika's protector knew about this relationship. Bk had every right to enter in our defense. It was no secret this relationship existed, in any form and for 14 wars to be declared across a decent range. They were clearly thinking about this whilst the statement was still on the page. It wasn't retroactively claiming protection over an AA, the treaty has always been there. And AK knew damn well about it Edited September 4, 2018 by Pheonix 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Them Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: But it *wasn't* on the page. Is it possible that AK looked at SG and thought "ISOLATED RAID TARGET" without having paid attention to your recruitment thread etc.? While i'm not going to comment much on the validity of their raid, the page was cited extensively to justify BK's intervention. Now that justification appears to be nonexistent. Hey there Partiboy. I’m sure it’s possible that DAK overlooked something, but since when has sloppiness been a defense for fricking up? Given the whole Oblivion-tC debacle, it’s pretty clear that you don’t believe in the necessity of treaties for intervention. For the sake of argument, let’s say that big bad BK is bullying helpless little DAK without reason. Will t$ step in to defend its protectorate from this unwarranted attack or is Orbis forever doomed to live under jackbooted IQ hegemony? 3 2 Quote [insert quote here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Them said: Hey there Partiboy. I’m sure it’s possible that DAK overlooked something, but since when has sloppiness been a defense for fricking up? Given the whole Oblivion-tC debacle, it’s pretty clear that you don’t believe in the necessity of treaties for intervention. For the sake of argument, let’s say that big bad BK is bullying helpless little DAK without reason. Will t$ step in to defend its protectorate from this unwarranted attack or is Orbis forever doomed to live under jackbooted IQ hegemony? Hello. Are you certain that after tonights incident you wish to taunt The $yndicate? We've been rather courteous so far. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Komiko said: Clearly Parti has been waiting so he can bankroll KT and TGH as reinforcements :^) Quite a few people were upset about the NAP solely because we wouldn't fight their wars for them. What's worse - signing a NAP after a big major war or simply just standing aside doing nothing as it was anyways? 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Them said: Hey there Partiboy. I’m sure it’s possible that DAK overlooked something, but since when has sloppiness been a defense for fricking up? Given the whole Oblivion-tC debacle, it’s pretty clear that you don’t believe in the necessity of treaties for intervention. For the sake of argument, let’s say that big bad BK is bullying helpless little DAK without reason. Will t$ step in to defend its protectorate from this unwarranted attack or is Orbis forever doomed to live under jackbooted IQ hegemony? That wasn't the citation at the initial conflict. But now that you've brought it up, if t$ does something, and it's wrong. Does that mean you can do something and it is no longer wrong? I can live life easier knowing that t$ changes the definition of good and evil, or is morality only a matter of convenience? 1 Quote "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince McMahon Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 26 minutes ago, Mad Max said: WE ARE THE ACK KNIGHTS It only makes sense... 2 Quote "YOU ALL BOUGHT IT! YOU ALL BOUGHT IT, HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER! YOU ALL BOUGHT IT! EVEN MY FAMILY - EVEN MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY BOUGHT IT!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: But it *wasn't* on the page. Is it possible that AK looked at SG and thought "ISOLATED RAID TARGET" without having paid attention to your recruitment thread etc.? While i'm not going to comment much on the validity of their raid, the page was cited extensively to justify BK's intervention. Now that justification appears to be nonexistent. Wait, are we saying that there was a hidden secret treaty? Or am I missing something here? EDIT: Just to clarify, this isn't a direct dig at Syndicate. Edited September 4, 2018 by Buorhann Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Buorhann said: Wait, are we saying that there was a hidden secret treaty? Or am I missing something here? No. We are saying that the justification as initially cited by BK gov during diplomatic discussions has turned out to be false, and is therefore subject of criticism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Them Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Hello. Are you certain that after tonights incident you wish to taunt The $yndicate? We've been rather courteous so far. Yep. Don’t care for a bit of playful banter? 3 minutes ago, James II said: That wasn't the citation at the initial conflict. But now that you've brought it up, if t$ does something, and it's wrong. Does that mean you can do something and it is no longer wrong? I can live life easier knowing that t$ changes the definition of good and evil, or is morality only a matter of convenience? I think you’re projecting. t$ did nothing wrong there. Unsportsmanlike, maybe but definitely not immoral like you paint it. 1 Quote [insert quote here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 Just now, Them said: Yep. Don’t care for a bit of playful banter? I think you’re projecting. t$ did nothing wrong there. Unsportsmanlike, maybe but definitely not immoral like you paint it. Not really, no. I don't banter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 can you clarify for me so it said @Prefonteen https://imgur.com/a/UGrHzwH.jpg how can you not assume that if it says "an attack on SG is attack on Cam" that they'll treat it as such? idk maybe i dont fully understand it or im confused and if that's the case then im fine admitting it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 20 minutes ago, Them said: Hey there Partiboy. I’m sure it’s possible that DAK overlooked something, but since when has sloppiness been a defense for fricking up? Given the whole Oblivion-tC debacle, it’s pretty clear that you don’t believe in the necessity of treaties for intervention. For the sake of argument, let’s say that big bad BK is bullying helpless little DAK without reason. Will t$ step in to defend its protectorate from this unwarranted attack or is Orbis forever doomed to live under jackbooted IQ hegemony? Put your moral philosophy book down, kid. 1 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 Just now, hope said: can you clarify for me so it said @Prefonteen https://imgur.com/a/UGrHzwH.jpg how can you not assume that if it says "an attack on SG is attack on Cam" that they'll treat it as such? idk maybe i dont fully understand it or im confused and if that's the case then im fine admitting it "404 error not found". Your link is broken :P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 smh stop whining about BK and just blitz them @Prefonteen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 27 minutes ago, Pheonix said: Let me direct you back to epi's post It wasn't retroactively claiming protection over an AA, the treaty has always been there. And AK knew damn well about it Protectorates do not transfer through MDPs. Think through the logical implications of what you just posted. 2 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Komiko said: smh stop whining about BK and just blitz them @Prefonteen Do it. noballs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: "404 error not found". Your link is broken :P. "An attack on SG is an attack on Camelot" what other way to interpret that is there than "BK will intervene because we protect Camelot" Edited September 4, 2018 by hope 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.