Jump to content

Shifty News Network-Antisocial


 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Wilhelm the Demented said:

Protectorates do not transfer through MDPs. Think through the logical implications of what you just posted.

SG is an extension of Camelot, and has always been treated as such. Like I have said multiple times before, AK knew damn well of this and a small little mistake in the alliance description doesn't break all ties

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hope said:

"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"

 

So, historically in both this game and other games, alliances with MD/MDoAP treaties have used the phrase "an attack on x is an attack on y" to indicate the level of commitment they have. It can be interpreted as a mere confirmation of the MDoAP. If it's not confirmed by BK and the alliance in question shows no direct ties to BK, then thats muddy.

 

Regardless, that's not really the core of t$' issue with this situation, as i've stated a good few times now.

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pheonix said:

SG is an extension of Camelot, and has always been treated as such. Like I have said multiple times before, AK knew damn well of this and a small little mistake in the alliance description doesn't break all ties

And yet an MDP still doesn't transfer protection. 

e$ is an extension of t$ and everyone should know that - but we still make it plain and apparent what the relationship is regarding protection. 

SG mishandled their treaties, Camelot fumbled their FA, and BK lied so they could make it all right again. What's not to love about this glorious example of competent scheming? 

  • Like 1

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

 

So, historically in both this game and other games, alliances with MD/MDoAP treaties have used the phrase "an attack on x is an attack on y" to indicate the level of commitment they have. It can be interpreted as a mere confirmation of the MDoAP. If it's not confirmed by BK and the alliance in question shows no direct ties to BK, then thats muddy.

 

Regardless, that's not really the core of t$' issue with this situation, as i've stated a good few times now.

thanks for clarifying o7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vince McMahon said:

It only makes sense...

maxresdefault.jpg

I fricking love you, because this is what I wanted to post but legit figured NOBODY would even understand. 

THANK YOU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Insert Name Here said:

This is all stupid and pointless. Both sides should have handled it a lot better. You're all big boys, next time try to sort this shit out diplomatically. :P 

 

Here's the fun part, there was an attempt. BK felt the need to attack AK mid negotiations for whatever reason they'll conjure up now.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cypher said:

 

Here's the fun part, there was an attempt. BK felt the need to attack AK mid negotiations for whatever reason they'll conjure up now.

Ayylah was calling

 

but, you know, I could also bring up the point that AK should have dealt with this diplomatically instead of attacking. You can make the same argument for both sides...

Edited by Pheonix
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pheonix said:

Ayylah was calling

 

but, you know, I could also bring up the point that AK should have dealt with this diplomatically instead of attacking. You can make the same argument for both sides...

Yeah, and if you follow that logic to its theoretical conclusion then TheShadow should have dealt with it diplomatically instead of raiding.

Or bank robbing, whichever, I dunno. Point is you can either blah blah blah treaty chess e-lawyer or you can just hit the red button, let's see some action

2aa.gif

 

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pheonix said:

but, you know, I could also bring up the point that AK should have dealt with this diplomatically instead of attacking. You can make the same argument for both sides...

 

That's completely different to figuring out a diplomatic route out while suddenly finding out all your attempts of negotiating in good faith suddenly dissipate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Who Me said:

BK has never been shy about going to war when they needed to or were bored, which was probably the case here. They were bored and someone gave then an excuse. If you don't like it, do something about it, otherwise bugger off.

I miss those days. We should all do a reunion tour next year.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
58 minutes ago, Who Me said:

BK has never been shy about going to war when they needed to or were bored, which was probably the case here. They were bored and someone gave then an excuse. If you don't like it, do something about it, otherwise bugger off.

Who Me gets it. 

1 hour ago, Cypher said:

 

That's completely different to figuring out a diplomatic route out while suddenly finding out all your attempts of negotiating in good faith suddenly dissipate.

I mean we told them that we'd intervene if they hit Camelot over Shadow's supposed debt. We also informed them that we agreed with Cam's position that SG is part of their AA, meaning that attacks on SG would trigger a response from us.  They opted to continue fighting SG anyways, so we backed up our words with a few counters.  Considering we confined ourselves to AK people hitting SG and refrained from targetting anyone who wasn't directly targeting our allies, I'd say the response was reasonable given the circumstances.

 

Anyways, the issue has been resolved diplomatically - AK is peacing out SG, BK is peacing out AK and SG's AA page is a little clearer to prevent these sort of misunderstandings in the future. So happy Labour day I guess? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Curufinwe said:

Anyways, the issue has been resolved diplomatically - AK is peacing out SG, BK is peacing out AK and SG's AA page is a little clearer to prevent these sort of misunderstandings in the future. So happy Labour day I guess? 

No global war?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ⚔ϟħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™⚔ said:

I miss those days. We should all do a reunion tour next year.

You still have my tiara? Lost it in the packing.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
On 3/16/2016 at 9:54 PM, Lykos said:

Our next move is obviously rolling LordStrum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

Considering we confined ourselves to AK people hitting SG and refrained from targetting anyone who wasn't directly targeting our allies, I'd say the response was reasonable given the circumstances. 

Much more reasonable than what I do.

Any alliance that has a member hit any of my ties, or my alliance, and I tell my Milcom to frick their alliance up.

Sure gets their attention quick that way.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do some of y'all care if the war was justified or not? War is the only thing stopping the game from stagnating; Be happy, get excited, stop complaining.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Cianuro said:

Why do some of y'all care if the war was justified or not? War is the only thing stopping the game from stagnating; Be happy, get excited, stop complaining.

we will when the person telling us this didn't just tiptoe around lulzily slapping a micro because HS would get all whiny and HS is for some reason i can't possibly understand tied to T$.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syndicate gives others chances.  I don’t blame them for giving HS a shot.

Granted I personally wouldn’t after their ordeal in the previous war against IQ, but I tend to dislike drama in coalition chats.  I always advise people to deal with it in private beforehand.

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.