Jump to content
Prefonteen

[NPO Call to Arms]$yndicate RoH and Treaty Activation

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Malal said:

It's non-chaining, so T$ entering via an agressive war and getting countered means that NPO doesn't have to enter. TC MDoAP is chaining through the BK-TCW treaty and is therefor defensive and not aggressive.

 

 

[insert Chad MDoAP vs Virgin MnDoAP meme templete here]

t$ was defending their protectorate, how is that aggressive? Would enjoy hearing your mental gymnastics on this one

 

Maybe scarf was right about the slaves thing 🤔

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Patrick Stewart said:

t$ was defending their protectorate, how is that aggressive? Would enjoy hearing your mental gymnastics on this one

 

Maybe scarf was right about the slaves thing 🤔

As stated numerous times, we were at war with their protectorates gov before they signed the proct. To give an example, if Fark signed a proct over Arrgh right now and entered the war by hitting UPN that would, by all correct definitions, be an aggressive action. 

 

 

HOWEVER, even if you want to be objectivly wrong and claim T$ is on the defensive, it is still a non-chaining treaty meaning NPO has no obligation to assist T$ if they choose to "defend" their "protectorate."

 

Furthermore, if you look at partibois shitpost in the OP, he's not even attempting to argue the latter because he knows that it is true. His argument is that some of the alliances hitting him are not /directly/ tied to BK/GotG but as I said earlier that doesn't matter since every single alliance hitting T$ has a defensive treaty chain that reachs back to those two aa's which means NPO is not obligated to assist since their treaty is non-chaining. If an alliance that doesn't have a treatychain back to BK/GotG hits T$ then, and only then, would NPO have an obligation to act.

Edited by Malal
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Malal said:

It's non-chaining, so T$ entering via an agressive war and getting countered means that NPO doesn't have to enter. TC MDoAP is chaining through the BK-TCW treaty and is therefor defensive and not aggressive.

 

 

[insert Chad MDoAP vs Virgin MnDoAP meme templete here]

Good to see you can finally connect the treaty chains now Underlord. Took you 4 years. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F's in the chat for the people trying to explain literally anything to anybody here.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Abbas Mehdi said:

Good to see you can finally connect the treaty chains now Underlord. Took you 4 years. 

Kek, you can't really blame the younger PW players for not understanding how non-chaining treaties work, but there are quite a few people posting from CN who should know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Malleator said:

1. War dodgers exist. 

2. Coal B attacks them as all war dodgers should be. 

3. t$ defends war dodgers, an illegitimate move in my eyes. 

4. Coal B defends against t$ aggression and illegitimate counters. 

5. t$ calls in allies to help defend war dodgers. 

 

There's no feckin' way you're serious, t$. 

They're WAR DODGERS. 

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT WHEN YOU HARBORED THEM??? 

One of the three nations attacking me at this very moment, on behalf of coalition B, is a war dodger.  So spare me this. Will anyone in Coal B deal help me defeat that war dodger?
Any plans against his alliance? Or do nations stop being war dodgers the moment they join and fight for coalition B?
Unless you guys deal with all those war dodgers coal B has gathered, spare us this.

Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Malal said:

Kek, you can't really blame the younger PW players for not understanding how non-chaining treaties work, but there are quite a few people posting from CN who should know better.

Well ‘non-chaining’ treaties are stupid and cowardly anyway.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering this is a different conflict, I am interested to see what will happen. This brings up a situation where NPO must break the coalition agreement to honor a treaty. Knowing this community, Coalition unity > treaties... but what kind of precedent does that set? 

If NPO doesn't uphold its treaty, I'll declare war on them. That'll show them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

And your other snips:

You would have been correct if the situation going into this was as you sketched. It was not.

1. TEst formed and was given protection by t$ on September 8th.

2. The first BK wars on TEst occurred October 1st. 

3. The youngest TEst seniority is 13 days. 

This means, overall, that there have been no wars on TEst for over 2 weeks. Your respective alliances were at peace, or ceasefire at best. t$ was in ongoing negotiations with BK. Negotiations in which BK made outlandish demands spanning 12 month terms, as well as demands for t$ to be held liable for the future actions of individuals. BK attacked in the middle of those negotiations.

4. Claims that "TEst was at war with coalition B" are false: Over half of TEst member base stems from Yakuza, which is on Coalition B's side. TEst is only at war with coalition B because coalition B decided it was. Not because TEst went on an offensive.

5. BK's first salvo on TEst covered the entire alliance, including those previously on the side of coalition B. It was not a limited intervention, but rather an all out declaration of war. 

6. t$' initial response was limited escalation: Only those hitting TEst were countered.

Considering the points above, there is no valid case to be made that TEst is the aggressor in this scenario. TEst is a defensive combatant and The $yndicate's protectorate is therefore triggered directly. Any BK allies joining in are oA at best. Any alliances not directly treatied to BK joining in on t$ (see: the ones listed in OP) are unprovoked aggressors to which the non-chaining clause of the NPO-t$ treaty can not apply.

 

Learn your chains. And don't misrepresent yourself.

1. By your logic memesphere were aggressive against GoB because after the first round it took us a bit to get back up into range to hit them again. The fact of the matter is that there is no statue of limitations for when we can't continue the war against our enemies.

 

2. While we were willing to only ask for surrenders from the 4 arrgh war dodgers /who are the leadership of TEst/, if someone joins an alliance and their entire gov is at war with us they are by definition choosing to enter the war against us themselves. If someone defected in the middle of a war, you don't have to draft a DoW against them and activate treaties again just for that particular nation. in the same vien, the entirety of TEst upon its formation was at war with our sphere and just because we felt we didn't have the capacity to hit them at that particular time doesn't mean we were at peace with them in exactly the same vien as we weren't at peace with GoB just because it took us a month into the war to hit then. 

 

3.T$ were rapidly informed that we still viewed these nations as enemies and while we were willing to only ask for surrenders from a small handful, by virtue of the fact that they are the gov of TEst and are at war with us, so too are the members that choose to join them during the war. 

14 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Considering this is a different conflict, I am interested to see what will happen. This brings up a situation where NPO must break the coalition agreement to honor a treaty. Knowing this community, Coalition unity > treaties... but what kind of precedent does that set? 

If NPO doesn't uphold its treaty, I'll declare war on them. That'll show them. 

It's the same conflict, T$ choose to enter into it to assist nations that declared war on us nearly 4 months ago now

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Sounds like a certain intel clause. 

Some would call that an incel clause.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

Considering the points above, there is no valid case to be made that TEst is the aggressor in this scenario. TEst is a defensive combatant and The $yndicate's protectorate is therefore triggered directly. Any BK allies joining in are oA at best. Any alliances not directly treatied to BK joining in on t$ (see: the ones listed in OP) are unprovoked aggressors to which the non-chaining clause of the NPO-t$ treaty can not apply.

"Wrong opinions and practices gradually yield to fact and argument: but facts and arguments, to produce any effect on the mind, must be brought before it. Very few facts are able to tell their own story, without comments to bring out their meaning. The whole strength and value, then, of human judgment, depending on the one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed on it only when the means of setting it right are kept constantly at hand."  - John Stuart Mill

 

We can try my good snek... We can try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShadyAssassin said:

What about the people who joined col b to dodge the war?

Set a precedent, kick them or roll yourselves.

 

only if they'll boost B's stats lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

1. No they were not. These guys were not out of your sphere's range and the situation differs. If you really want to go play legal semantics though, I will pose that since this is a new legal entity and you are at war with *arrgh* , TEst was at peace with you until you hit them.  

As for your statue of limitations bullshit... that's the problem with BK in general. Whenever you whiff the tiniest hint of a victory you get drunk on power and start asserting yourself unneccessarily with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, writing checks you can't cash while engaging in extremely tiring mental gymnastics. Not gonna work here.

 

2. You asked for far more than surrenders, including 12-month embargoes with half the game, NAPs, t$ cosigning and so forth. Regular peace was agreed and reneged on with "WE HAVE MORE TERMS" and so forth. You negotiated in bad faith and escalated an incident which would have been easily fixed. If suspect it's your boys taking out some rage over  the OWR-Carthago exit and subsequent t$ treaty, but that's not here nor there.

You can keep attempting to make fallacious arguments by connecting the situation to seemingly similar situations with vastly different underlying factors and situations, but that's not going to deter me from the core argument.

 

3. t$ did not escalate this unneccessarily, and t$ did not make the final escalation to all out warfare, calling in an entire coalition. That's on you. Escalating gives you a military advantage. It also cedes the political and moral high ground. Own up to it.

1: Polar had stated several times we did not consider the war over, it is your gov that continued to ghost her despite being very active in other FA efforts that led to this. TEst was not in any way at peace with us and that had been made clear multiple times.

2: We wanted surrenders and guarantees that they would not immediately use their infra in the middle of a war time to start funding their allies. Given the character of those involved having a protector guarantee that alliances they protect abide by a peace agreement is not unreasonable. Negotiation is in bad faith when your leader ignores our representative for considerable lengths of time, and deemed it necessary to return to open combat. 

3: T$ escalated this by aggressively attacking BK who was continuing hostilities in the current war. As for coalitions, T$ also called Sans and Typhon before BK called any allies of their own, indicating that you were escalating to full coalition warfare in aid of the enemy side.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1.  I was using ranges as an example.  And we don't actually know if it's a separate legal entity.  They could just be poaching members for their bank AA to make it look legit or they're just rebuilding to send war aid or even re-join the war proper. Because of this potential issue we required proof of TEst independence.

 

2.  These four nations claimed that they had no intention of returning back to the war and re-joining Arrgh so we simply asked them to confirm that by promising not to aid our enemies or re-join arrgh for a period of time.

The fact that the term was not accepted is proof in everyones eyes that they both wanted to and were going to provide assistance to our enemies and/or they had the full intention of returning to aargh extremely soon. 

 We only wanted TS to prove that those two options were not the case by promising to ensure that those specific four nations upheld the terms. TS refusing to do so means could very likey mean that they were aware of these four nations plans to assist our enemies soon and/or re-join aargh.

 

3. As has been stated numerous times, TS was well aware that we considered these nations active combatants and that we were going to continue our defensive war against them if they did not properly exit the war via a surrender. In return for our generosity TS choose to stall the surrender negations for over two weeks. Peace was never agreed because T$'s FA leader kept refusing to engage in the talks forcing us to discuss with the IA minister instead.

Edited by Malal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would more along the lines consider someone leaving an alliance at war and joining the opposing side as a turn coat, not a war dodger. That doesn't even make sense guys. 😂

By definition war dodging is running away from the war, not continuing it on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, I'm imagining a lot of cancellations post war. Lots of these treaties seem to be ones of convenience and it's certainly coming to light

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.