Jump to content

Peace In Our Time


JT Jag
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Salt Meat said:

Just to make sure I'm not confused with who I'm talking to. Is this the same Cooper that recently tried to tell me that BK defending BoC with Camelot wasn't a defensive action? TLE hits us because someone 2 treaty chains away also hit us, and that's what you call entering defensively?

You don't get it. If Coalition A does it then it must be inherently good, and if Coalition B does it then it must be inherently bad.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You're playing with words.  An in-game NAP is a mechanic designed to prevents wars declared by errant members and to symbolize that relationship on the treaty web is not diplomatically relevant.  Those lines are about as meaningful as sheepy's continued promises to actually fix the game (aka they don't mean shit).  The treaty you link does have force to it as part of the global politics, but I believe Pantheon entered as soon as TI was blitzed by GOONS.  As Pantheon received counters from alliances other than GOONS, TLE had the right to join at Pantheon's call (which they did at update).  Also, we had this conversation in TLE's DoW thread where I explained this to you and @Richard Payne III clarified that he did use this as a CB.  

I have no interest in arguing here rather I'm just telling you the facts of the matter.  Can we please leave meaningless provocations out of this?  I am trying to engage in good faith discourse, and I hope that goal can be mutual. 

 

You play the rhetorical game and yet deride us for refusing to participate in the bullshit. Our agreement with TLE was still binding, regardless of whether or not you consider the ingame treaty mechanics valid expressions of those agreements. You can tell me what the "facts" are all day, but when I know you are full of shit I couldn't care less. 

 

4 minutes ago, hope said:

not sure why you feel the need to be disrespectful to people engaging in actual thoughtful discussion with you  

 

I believe there is a lot more at play than you may be aware of, but suffice it to say I have not felt that TKR have been engaging us in good faith for a little while now.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

You're playing with words.  An in-game NAP is a mechanic designed to prevents wars declared by errant members and to symbolize that relationship on the treaty web is not diplomatically relevant.  Those lines are about as meaningful as sheepy's continued promises to actually fix the game (aka they don't mean shit).  The treaty you link does have force to it as part of the global politics, but I believe Pantheon entered as soon as TI was blitzed by GOONS.  As Pantheon received counters from alliances other than GOONS, TLE had the right to join at Pantheon's call (which they did at update).  Also, we had this conversation in TLE's DoW thread where I explained this to you and @Richard Payne III clarified that he did use this as a CB.  

I have no interest in arguing here rather I'm just telling you the facts of the matter.  Can we please leave meaningless provocations out of this?  I am trying to engage in good faith discourse, and I hope that goal can be mutual. 

So NAPs dont mean shit when it's your coalition breaking them, okay. If P&W did the Olympics, Coalition A would secure Gold, Silver and Bronze in the mental gymnastics category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So NAPs dont mean shit when it's your coalition breaking them, okay. If P&W did the Olympics, Coalition A would secure Gold, Silver and Bronze in the mental gymnastics category.

U forgot the twist and spin gymnastics events as well 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Salt Meat said:

Just to make sure I'm not confused with who I'm talking to. Is this the same Cooper that recently tried to tell me that BK defending BoC with Camelot wasn't a defensive action? TLE hits us because someone 2 treaty chains away also hit us, and that's what you call entering defensively?

Sounds about right. Just remember that the TKR hierarchy of treaties is ODoAP > NAP > MDP and things should make more sense going forward.

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

Just now, Prefonteen said:

As opposed to the NPO hierarchy of treaties which is NAP < ODOAP < MDP < MDoAP <MDAP < BK

Ah, I see you're once again feigning illiteracy regarding non-chaining clauses.

Regardless, you can rest easy now that we actually have an MDAP with BK. Your complaints have been received, and we believe this solution satisfies all of them.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Ah, I see you're once again feigning illiteracy regarding non-chaining clauses.

Regardless, you can rest easy now that we actually have an MDAP with BK. Your complaints have been received, and we believe this solution satisfies all of them.

No friend, I was referring to your general disposition and prioritization of ties and relationships.

 

....so nothing has changed. Got it.

  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Ah, I see you're once again feigning illiteracy regarding non-chaining clauses.

Regardless, you can rest easy now that we actually have an MDAP with BK. Your complaints have been received, and we believe this solution satisfies all of them.

So "non-chaining" means "our other full MDAPs aren't valid when we directly attack our allies". Why anyone bothers to talk to you at all is completely irrational and self-destructive, since your word means less than nothing.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

As opposed to the NPO hierarchy of treaties which is NAP < ODOAP < MDP < MDoAP <MDAP < BK

I'm going to need you to do a couple things. First:

 

Learn how to read. 

 

Second:

 

Recognize when you're wrong.

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

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
7 hours ago, SleepingNinja said:

Thanks for ignoring the Intel agreement clause! Clearly you've never done anything wrong. No sir, you didn't sign certain parties behind our backs and take in Coalition A war dodgers. Very innocent.

Did you tell your allies about GPWC or GOON's before setting it all up and getting their view?

Intel agreement goes both ways, such as we all know BK talked to you first before hitting T$, did you tell T$ whom at that time you still had a treaty with that BK was going to hit them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
2 hours ago, Salt Meat said:

Just to make sure I'm not confused with who I'm talking to. Is this the same Cooper that recently tried to tell me that BK defending BoC with Camelot wasn't a defensive action? TLE hits us because someone 2 treaty chains away also hit us, and that's what you call entering defensively?

Just so you are even less confused, BK dropped BoC, tried to get Camelot to drop BoC, wanted to roll BoC, tried to rip BoC off for 5,005,000,000 and threatened BoC.

I agree with Camelot defending BoC that was the right thing to do, but BK did not hit NP to protect or help BoC or Camelot, they did it as NP was dumb enough to give BK a reason to drag them back in to the war all over Dusty stealing BoC bank and NP refusing to pay back what 350m that Dusty spent on cities.

If we are going to stick to fats, then lets do that.

(Yes if it was not clear, I support BoC in trying to get their bank back, and i respect Camelot to holding true to the treaty with BoC even with BK trying to force them to cancel)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Comrade Marx said:

 

I believe there is a lot more at play than you may be aware of, but suffice it to say I have not felt that TKR have been engaging us in good faith for a little while now.

This is rich considering the events which have transpired since early November.

Please continue being a jester and amusing everyone with such humorous tidbits of logic and reasoning. 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Like 2

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB

 

8 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

We're not the ones whose duplicitous logs proving stacked lies and plans to backstab allies, frustrate peace talks and run people out of the game are plastered all over the OWF. But keep on coming with the "no u"s.

Why are you still allied to certain alliances if you don't want to set a precedent on breaking treaties?

"An in-game treaty has nothing to do with the diplomatic realities." - Coalition A

"YoU BaCksTaBBeD CoNsTanTLY!#>!$@%" - Also Coalition A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

This is rich considering the events which have transpired since early November.

Please continue being a jester and amusing everyone with such humorous tidbits of logic and reasoning. 

Is there a competition between yourself and Barfsalot in TGH to see who can make the most vague allusions to things with absolutely nothing to back it up? What's the prize?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Salt Meat said:

Is there a competition between yourself and Barfsalot in TGH to see who can make the most vague allusions to things with absolutely nothing to back it up? What's the prize?

K I chuckled lmao .. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Salt Meat said:

Is there a competition between yourself and Barfsalot in TGH to see who can make the most vague allusions to things with absolutely nothing to back it up? What's the prize?

 Save yourself the effort and give up the obtuse act. 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Like 1

Untitled.png

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.