Popular Post QueenPhoenix Posted September 19, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) Polaris and the Order of the White Rose, in recognition of their common values, and mutual friendship with one another, do hereby declare this treaty which shall henceforth bind the two alliances together. Article I: Non-Aggression The undersigned parties agree that no military actions should be taken against other signatories to this treaty, furthermore all disputes between signatories will be resolved through private diplomatic channels In the instance a war or raid is declared, the aggressors alliances agrees to pay reparations to the other signatory for all damages in a timely manner. Article II: Mutual Defense If either signatory is attacked by a foreign entity, it is the obligation of the other signatory to assist by using all means at their disposal, including economical, political and direct military force. Article III: Optional Aggression If either signatory declares war on a foreign enemy, the other signatory is encouraged to assist at their discretion in any way possible. The signatory initiating hostilities is under the obligation to inform the other signatory a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the planned start of hostilities. Both signatories additionally agree to refrain from taking any actions, direct or indirect, that may cause the other signatory to enter an aggressive conflict unwillingly, without first obtaining approval from the other signatory. Article IV: Intelligence Should a signatory learn of impending action against another signatory, said signatory is obligated to tell the other party as soon as reasonably possible Article V: Free trade & Open Markets In the spirit of the VOC and to promote internal economic growth in both alliances, each signatory agrees to keep markets open for the full duration of this pact. It is also encouraged to both signatories to offer economic aid to the other signatory in times of need. Article VI: Non-Chaining Agreement. This is a non-chaining treaty. Should either party declare a war, then receive counter attacks from other alliances, there is no obligation for the other to come to their defense. Article VII: Dissolution of Terms Should a signatory wish to withdraw from this treaty they must inform the other signatory 72 hours in advance of their withdrawal, at which time they are released from the above obligations. Signed for Polaris:AlmightyGrub - Emperor of Polaris EaTeMuP - Regent of Polaris WSxPhoenix - Minister of Truth Signed for OWR:Prime: Sval Prime Regent: Monkeybutt Head of Fa: Arnout Deputy of Fa: Kitschie Edited September 19, 2017 by WSxPhoenix 8 Quote "You must begin by gaining power over yourself; then another; then a group, an order, a world, a species, a group of species; finally, the galaxy itself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnout Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Glad to be working with you all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegee Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Congrats Polaris! Quote I'm just procrastinating for a paper I have to write at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RightHonorable Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Congratulations to Polaris and OWR! Quote Haatyc or'arue jate'shya ori'sol aru'ike nuhaatyc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aliyan Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Goodluck to both alliances Particularly Polaris =D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eva-Beatrice Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 mfw I'm no longer included in the signatures 4 Quote When the seagulls cried, none were left alive. "If life is a miracle, then death is a certainty." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arnout Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 1 minute ago, Eva-Beatrice said: mfw I'm no longer included in the signatures Only Monkeybutt may have that glory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Good luck to both of you. Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitschie Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 I've added an invisible amendment to include mandatory hugs from both Phoenix and Eva-Beatrice. Signed by Kitschie, Eva-Beatrice, and Phoenix. See Eva? You still get to sign. <3 *hug* We do the thing together now. 1 Quote ? Kitschie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadesflames Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Thought this was going to make for quite the twist. But then it was just this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Costello Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 This is Gorgeous Quote I hold the Right to my own Fate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exar Kun -George Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 (edited) Congratz both of u Edited September 19, 2017 by Gorge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted September 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2017 BUT REMEMBER CONSOLIDATION IS BAD GUYS 17 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest San Fortunado Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Finally, you guys got real allies! Good luck and godspeed to both of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 When is OWR joining IQ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vladamir Putin Posted September 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2017 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneal Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Vladamir Putin said: -image- They do put the "web" in treaty web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted September 20, 2017 Share Posted September 20, 2017 Do people try to find you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Roquentin Posted September 20, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Sketchy said: BUT REMEMBER CONSOLIDATION IS BAD GUYS Just gonna address this once: there was a specific type of consolidation referred to, meaning consolidating more and more NS into a sphere. It doesn't refer to just people who already are indirectly tied to each other signing treaties. If a bunch of small alliances signed a bunch of redundant treaties, it wouldn't make much of a difference. If those alliances were in a dominant position and signing additional treaties and adding more NS, the charge of hypocrisy would be legit since the complaints people had were about consolidating an overwhelming amount of NS into a dominant sphere and increasing sprawl/expansion such as adding former neutrals or traditionally antagonistic/non-aligned alliances. In any scenario, one side is still the underdog and outside alliances aren't joining it. This type of imagery is very misleading since it ignores the fact that those are largely smaller alliances. Meanwhile, the top 10 has a majority allied to each other with some filling the gaps of direct treaties. The other grouping can tie a lot more NS together with fewer treaties. There's a bit of a irony in complaining about these treaties when four alliances tied to the #1 and #2 alliances or both made an MD bloc recently. The fact that there are fewer interlocking treaties that some may consider redundant doesn't change the fact that many allegiances in the non-IQ sector are more or less ironclad. Edited September 20, 2017 by Roquentin 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 3 hours ago, Roquentin said: Just gonna address this once: there was a specific type of consolidation referred to, meaning consolidating more and more NS into a sphere. It doesn't refer to just people who already are indirectly tied to each other signing treaties. If a bunch of small alliances signed a bunch of redundant treaties, it wouldn't make much of a difference. If those alliances were in a dominant position and signing additional treaties and adding more NS, the charge of hypocrisy would be legit since the complaints people had were about consolidating an overwhelming amount of NS into a dominant sphere and increasing sprawl/expansion such as adding former neutrals or traditionally antagonistic/non-aligned alliances. In any scenario, one side is still the underdog and outside alliances aren't joining it. This type of imagery is very misleading since it ignores the fact that those are largely smaller alliances. Meanwhile, the top 10 has a majority allied to each other with some filling the gaps of direct treaties. The other grouping can tie a lot more NS together with fewer treaties. There's a bit of a irony in complaining about these treaties when four alliances tied to the #1 and #2 alliances or both made an MD bloc recently. The fact that there are fewer interlocking treaties that some may consider redundant doesn't change the fact that many allegiances in the non-IQ sector are more or less ironclad. I mean I was trolling lmfao. But since you want to go there, your side has more nations, more alliances, more nation score and a larger consolidation of a single tier. I hope you don't think you are the underdogs lmfao. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 this treaty is lame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubayoo Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 I farted softly. Then, this treaty turned gas solid. I found some TP. 1 Quote My Avie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senna/ Shortened versions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qZu7h5ys0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVqSpS65VE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix2683 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 15 hours ago, Roquentin said: Just gonna address this once: there was a specific type of consolidation referred to, meaning consolidating more and more NS into a sphere. It doesn't refer to just people who already are indirectly tied to each other signing treaties. If a bunch of small alliances signed a bunch of redundant treaties, it wouldn't make much of a difference. If those alliances were in a dominant position and signing additional treaties and adding more NS, the charge of hypocrisy would be legit since the complaints people had were about consolidating an overwhelming amount of NS into a dominant sphere and increasing sprawl/expansion such as adding former neutrals or traditionally antagonistic/non-aligned alliances. In any scenario, one side is still the underdog and outside alliances aren't joining it. This type of imagery is very misleading since it ignores the fact that those are largely smaller alliances. Meanwhile, the top 10 has a majority allied to each other with some filling the gaps of direct treaties. The other grouping can tie a lot more NS together with fewer treaties. There's a bit of a irony in complaining about these treaties when four alliances tied to the #1 and #2 alliances or both made an MD bloc recently. The fact that there are fewer interlocking treaties that some may consider redundant doesn't change the fact that many allegiances in the non-IQ sector are more or less ironclad. Wait Roq, You've complained about a dominant side and all top alliances being treatied to each other and adding more and more allies.... This... Wait... But..... wow.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Roquentin said: Stuff Making a weird, elaborate argument about how signing ties within a sphere isn't consolidating (bear in mind, you literally used inter-sphere ties as the basis for a CB a couple wars back, but let's put that aside) would probably work better if you hadn't just added GoG to IQ (after the postwar Acadia/BK ties), which is the "other" kind of consolidating you're trying to distinguish between. "Don't call us on consolidating within our sphere, because we're not consolidating outside our sphere in this particular thread, although we do do it, but also shut up". 'Kay. Edited September 21, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax 4 Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 30 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said: Making a weird, elaborate argument about how signing ties within a sphere isn't consolidating (bear in mind, you literally used inter-sphere ties as the basis for a CB a couple wars back, but let's put that aside) would probably work better if you hadn't just added GoG to IQ (after the postwar Acadia/BK ties), which is the "other" kind of consolidating you're trying to distinguish between. "Don't call us on consolidating within our sphere, because we're not consolidating outside our sphere in this particular thread, although we do do it, but also shut up". 'Kay. The intra-sphere ties were ties that followed two things: the definitive removal of the prior balance of power when the #1 alliance that had sat out the two wars preceding it chose to sign a chaining MDoAP with TKR while downgrading an MD with VE to OD and Paragon breaking off. Consequently, the logical assumption was that the sphere in question had embraced being the established power and would act accordingly. You can call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but what followed after that war simply validated it further with the continued consolidation of nation strength into the established power with the addition of outside alliances. GoG being added to IQ makes no difference. It's not a pick up. They were on our side in the last war. There was no real reason not to let them into IQ. If IQ expanded further out beyond alliances that were on our side in the last war and became the dominant sphere and that situation persisted then it'd be the type of consolidation I referred to. Anyway, we're not really going to agree either way, but hope this clears up my position. 3 hours ago, Phoenix2683 said: Wait Roq, You've complained about a dominant side and all top alliances being treatied to each other and adding more and more allies.... This... Wait... But..... wow.... I never complained about it directly, rather there was a lack of ownership and acknowledgement that people were doing it. It was usually the people who didn't acknowledge what they were doing in that regard and had always said they didn't want hegemonies and such but had essentially built one of their own instead. Either such a situation would persist or someone within it would get bored enough to do something about it. As there were alliances with the energy to split off even if it meant risking a loss, a few of them did so and chose to give up a position of greater security. The energy is either going to be there or it won't. However, the point in that post wasn't merely that the top alliances are all allied to each other though, just that bigger alliances being on one side means more NS can be tied together with fewer treaties and having more NS consolidated in fewer alliances makes inter-alliance coordination easier as opposed to a group that has it strength more spread out across alliances. The treaties between alliances tied to the IQ side don't consolidate more of the available nation strength to IQ even though a lot of people have been complaining about them in earnest. At most, it's just a group outside of the traditional winning side that didn't break immediately. The NS and activity isn't in really in IQ's favor no matter how many same side treaties are signed, and there's a higher likelihood of external actors leaning in the other direction when alliances that are now paperless and people with optional ties but traditionally anti-IQ aren't included. As some alliances would have better opportunities doing the opposite of signing more interlocking treaties ie. cancelling like one or two alliances did, it's a testament to the fact that the ones who would be in such a position prefer to stick it out rather than either getting out of the way of the traditional winning side or joining it. I realize you're trying to get me on some sort of hypocrisy thing since I know who you are, which is why I've given the explanation but I never really denied anything I was doing.The way I do things in a low vitality context is highly different from the way I do things in a relatively high vitality one. 1 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.