Advertisement
by Castenor » Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:38 am
by Timiskrane » Sun Aug 27, 2023 10:58 am
Castenor wrote:Another blow to BOM. Caer Sidi should really consider who they're partnering with, and how it affects their established allies, before signing a treaty with probably the most hated region in the game. CS is a good region and deserves their commendation, but they also deserve better than BOM. Reading Valtarre celebrate the termination of CS's alliance with Europeia makes it clear how much they care about CS and its best interests.
by Devious » Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:20 am
Timiskrane wrote:Castenor wrote:Another blow to BOM. Caer Sidi should really consider who they're partnering with, and how it affects their established allies, before signing a treaty with probably the most hated region in the game. CS is a good region and deserves their commendation, but they also deserve better than BOM. Reading Valtarre celebrate the termination of CS's alliance with Europeia makes it clear how much they care about CS and its best interests.
I don't follow with how BoM is a looser in any aspect of this situation. Certainly you could make a case CS is at a net loss bc of this (I wouldn't though), but BoM literally only gained from it. And I don't think you could find much better, in terms of RP partners then BoM. (Again, remember, this is just an RP agreement that people are making a fuss about).
by Angeloid Astraea » Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:27 am
Castenor wrote:Another blow to BOM.
by Devious » Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:28 am
by Omnicontrol » Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:39 am
Castenor wrote:probably the most hated region in the game.
United Calanworie wrote:It only is "absent" in F7 because nobody previews their posts because they're trying to move at the speed of mach fuck to not get ninjd.
Reventus Koth wrote:you're right guys my bad the next time i write a treaty i'll make sure to leave the possibility of raiding the other signatory on the table
Mlakhavia wrote:TCB arent fascists, we are simply the People
the People have a Stick
We use it to Whack piddly rightist frontiers
United Calanworie wrote:Us mods don't do shit.
[violet] wrote:lol
United Calanworie wrote:what in tarnation
by Arstotskiano » Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:11 pm
Castenor wrote:Another blow to BOM. Caer Sidi should really consider who they're partnering with, and how it affects their established allies, before signing a treaty with probably the most hated region in the game. CS is a good region and deserves their commendation, but they also deserve better than BOM. Reading Valtarre celebrate the termination of CS's alliance with Europeia makes it clear how much they care about CS and its best interests.
by Sporaltryus » Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:44 pm
Arstotskiano wrote:A purely role play treaty
Valtarre wrote:Article 2
The signatories agree not to partake in hostilities against each other. Each signatory understands that violation of this article could result in the dissolution of this treaty.
- Hostilities and hostile actions shall be defined as any organizing of a raid directly on the other signatory, participating in a raid directly on the other signatory, conducting espionage, or engaging in subterfuge, etc.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:47 pm
Sporaltryus wrote:Arstotskiano wrote:A purely role play treatyValtarre wrote:Article 2
The signatories agree not to partake in hostilities against each other. Each signatory understands that violation of this article could result in the dissolution of this treaty.
- Hostilities and hostile actions shall be defined as any organizing of a raid directly on the other signatory, participating in a raid directly on the other signatory, conducting espionage, or engaging in subterfuge, etc.
Not sure why a "purely role play treaty" would have this article, but go off, I guess.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Volstrostia » Sun Aug 27, 2023 6:52 pm
Sporaltryus wrote:Arstotskiano wrote:A purely role play treatyValtarre wrote:Article 2
The signatories agree not to partake in hostilities against each other. Each signatory understands that violation of this article could result in the dissolution of this treaty.
- Hostilities and hostile actions shall be defined as any organizing of a raid directly on the other signatory, participating in a raid directly on the other signatory, conducting espionage, or engaging in subterfuge, etc.
Not sure why a "purely role play treaty" would have this article, but go off, I guess.
by Ostrovskiy » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:16 pm
Volstrostia wrote:Sporaltryus wrote:
Not sure why a "purely role play treaty" would have this article, but go off, I guess.
Could it possibly be that a boilerplate NAP is in practically every single serious treaty ever signed in NS? Could that potentially be an explanation?
Not sure why you thought a single "yeah we won't raid eachother" clause instantly means full-scale military aid and cooperation or anything else that it doesn't, but go off I guess.
by Sporaltryus » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:17 pm
Volstrostia wrote:Could it possibly be that a boilerplate NAP is in practically every single serious treaty ever signed in NS? Could that potentially be an explanation?
by Reventus Koth » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:25 pm
Xanthal wrote:Only raiders can win in this war- a defender can keep them from winning one region, one update at a time, but there will always be the next region, the next update, and the next, forever.
by Timiskrane » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:32 pm
Sporaltryus wrote:Volstrostia wrote:Could it possibly be that a boilerplate NAP is in practically every single serious treaty ever signed in NS? Could that potentially be an explanation?
Could it possibly be that a serious treaty with strict roleplay implications wouldn't need to include a non-aggression clause that relates to R/D? Unless there's more than roleplay at play here. . .
by Improper Classifications » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:32 pm
by The Ambis » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:34 pm
Timiskrane wrote:Sporaltryus wrote:Could it possibly be that a serious treaty with strict roleplay implications wouldn't need to include a non-aggression clause that relates to R/D? Unless there's more than roleplay at play here. . .
Any independent region that signs a treaty with raiders and doesn't request protection from raids out of it would be quite bad at Foreign Affairs.
by Castenor » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:34 pm
Timiskrane wrote:And I don't think you could find much better, in terms of RP partners then BoM. (Again, remember, this is just an RP agreement that people are making a fuss about).
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:boilerplate NAP
Volstrostia wrote:boilerplate NAP
Timiskrane wrote:I don't follow with how BoM is a looser in any aspect of this situation.
Arstotskiano wrote:I do not see at all how this is a blow to BoM.
Reventus Koth wrote:you're right guys my bad the next time i write a treaty i'll make sure to leave the possibility of raiding the other signatory on the table
by Reventus Koth » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:46 pm
Castenor wrote:I didn’t know BOM did RP until this happened. In fact, if asked, I and everyone else I know would describe BOM as a “raider organization”, not an “RP region”.
Xanthal wrote:Only raiders can win in this war- a defender can keep them from winning one region, one update at a time, but there will always be the next region, the next update, and the next, forever.
by Improper Classifications » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:50 pm
by The Ambis » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:50 pm
Reventus Koth wrote:Castenor wrote:I didn’t know BOM did RP until this happened. In fact, if asked, I and everyone else I know would describe BOM as a “raider organization”, not an “RP region”.
Your cluelessness is not an argument. Please go to the first post of the BoM embassy thread, CTRL+F "roleplay", and report back to me with how many times it appears in the first ever post, 11 years ago. Roleplay has never not been a part of our identity, you just had no interest in that aspect of our community until now.
by Falafelandia » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:55 pm
The Ambis wrote:Reventus Koth wrote:Your cluelessness is not an argument. Please go to the first post of the BoM embassy thread, CTRL+F "roleplay", and report back to me with how many times it appears in the first ever post, 11 years ago. Roleplay has never not been a part of our identity, you just had no interest in that aspect of our community until now.
Hi! I did it! So, the word roleplay appears three times. Want to know how many times military appears? Three.
by Improper Classifications » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:56 pm
The Ambis wrote:Reventus Koth wrote:Your cluelessness is not an argument. Please go to the first post of the BoM embassy thread, CTRL+F "roleplay", and report back to me with how many times it appears in the first ever post, 11 years ago. Roleplay has never not been a part of our identity, you just had no interest in that aspect of our community until now.
Hi! I did it! So, the word roleplay appears three times. Want to know how many times military appears? Three.
by Castenor » Sun Aug 27, 2023 7:59 pm
Reventus Koth wrote:I appreciate your effort to demonstrate how braindead the NAP argument is
Improper Classifications wrote:God forbid two people somewhat connected use the same term lest it be called a product of the propaganda machine.
by Falafelandia » Sun Aug 27, 2023 8:01 pm
He is.
Castenor wrote:Improper Classifications wrote:God forbid two people somewhat connected use the same term lest it be called a product of the propaganda machine.
There are fifteen posts in the Gameplay forum with the word “boilerplate” in them. About 10 are Souls and posts quoting Souls. Souls used the term, and then some other person with curiously the same exact political opinion used the same exact obscureish term to make the same exact point right after.
by Reventus Koth » Sun Aug 27, 2023 8:02 pm
Xanthal wrote:Only raiders can win in this war- a defender can keep them from winning one region, one update at a time, but there will always be the next region, the next update, and the next, forever.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement