Embassy of The North Pacific

[Angeloid Astraea]

It's a strange day when a raider with no interest in neutrality has a better understanding of the policy and ideology of a neutral GCR than its former long-time treaty ally. TNP's sanctioning circle can hold hands and play dumb about TEP's easily-understood approach to gameplay for as many posts in a row as they like. It doesn't change the fact that every question being asked of TEP's approach can be answered simply by understanding that they're neutrals that don't engage in offensive military action.

Lying about whether or not you wanted them to commit troops (you did), attacking their culture, attacking their diplomacy, attacking their sitting delegate, and the name-calling... With this behavior, is it any wonder TNP complained about TEP being too focused on people's vibes? =P

You’re literally denying reality and calling me a liar. I honestly don’t know how to respond to that. TNP did not ask TEP to contribute military forces to advance our war. TNP explicitly said it was seeking support in whatever form TEP was willing to provide. TEP indicated it was unwilling to provide support of any kind. I was there, you were not. I had a stake in these events, you as you say do not. So other than the fact it is inconvenient for your narrative to concede this point, I’m not sure why you keep trying to insist on something that did not happen and is not true.

As for disgruntled posts and swipes and snipes after the fact…well a basic understanding of time will tell you whether that was part of what led to the end of the treaty or not. You want so much for this to be something that it’s not, I understand why, but the reality of the situation is what it is no matter how much you wish it was something different.

So TEP wasn't expected to commit troops to The Wellspring?

[Altys]

If arguing about a terrible WA policy = flame-baiting, then sure. That's what happens when your delegate says that the "general likability of a person" should factor into whether or not they should receive a C/C. Sorry, not sorry.

You got barred from talking in a debate channel by server moderation because all you were able to do was start heated arguments by any means necessary for your own entertainment. You even got warned by server admins that repeated malicious behaviour of the sort would result in such, yet you persevered. Yeah those arguments were linked to your comments about TEP and the WA, and? Content doesn't matter, your behaviour does.

[Pallaith]

You’re literally denying reality and calling me a liar. I honestly don’t know how to respond to that. TNP did not ask TEP to contribute military forces to advance our war. TNP explicitly said it was seeking support in whatever form TEP was willing to provide. TEP indicated it was unwilling to provide support of any kind. I was there, you were not. I had a stake in these events, you as you say do not. So other than the fact it is inconvenient for your narrative to concede this point, I’m not sure why you keep trying to insist on something that did not happen and is not true.

As for disgruntled posts and swipes and snipes after the fact…well a basic understanding of time will tell you whether that was part of what led to the end of the treaty or not. You want so much for this to be something that it’s not, I understand why, but the reality of the situation is what it is no matter how much you wish it was something different.

So TEP wasn't expected to commit troops to The Wellspring?

Is that a serious question? Why would TEP be expected to contribute troops to our ally? Outreach to allies to contribute pilers to another ally is not a provision of our former treaty, nor is it a reasonable provision. But if this is you indicating that TEP felt we expected them to do something that could only have been a request, and one that we haven’t even thought about since it was made and which played no role in our recent talks or the end of this treaty, I must again stress that TEP’s view on this whole matter is obviously suspect and not what one would exactly call reasonable.

[Francois Isidore]

Proud to add "The North Pacific's treaty with another feeder" to your growing list of casualties in the war you wanted so badly.

Don't flatter yourself. I wouldn't say that either side considered it to be too much of a loss anyway, so you shouldn't either.

What an utterly hilarious statement. To start "We voted to withdraw from this treaty that the only other member of already withdrew from" is such a funny sentiment. Huge "no, she didn't leave me, I broke up with her" vibes.

Ah, yes. I'm terribly shocked that someone from an embassy region of TEP, and a warzone at that, doesn't understand how treaty provisions work.

It looks like you're in good company though, considering that TEP didn't even have the competency/professionalism to abide by the agreement that they signed onto. One day, when you undoubtably do something that upsets them, I imagine that they'll order the closure of your guys' embassy with about as much notice as we were given. Trust me though, it's very easy to wind up on the wrong foot with them. I mean, they take their alliances about as seriously as they take themselves. So I'll leave it to you to do the math on that one.

Regardless, as others have been so quick to point out, WZT and TEP don't have a treaty agreement in place. So perhaps the unfortunate nature of their diplomatic whims is only reserved for so-called "allies" of the East. I wouldn't bet on it though. I'd handle their rather temperamental attitude with caution if I were you.

[Angeloid Astraea]

So TEP wasn't expected to commit troops to The Wellspring?

Is that a serious question? Why would TEP be expected to contribute troops to our ally? Outreach to allies to contribute pilers to another ally is not a provision of our former treaty, nor is it a reasonable provision. But if this is you indicating that TEP felt we expected them to do something that could only have been a request, and one that we haven’t even thought about since it was made and which played no role in our recent talks or the end of this treaty, I must again stress that TEP’s view on this whole matter is obviously suspect and not what one would exactly call reasonable.

So when you asked that TEP stand up to those that del-tipped The Wellspring in January, what did you expect from them?

[Altys]

So TEP wasn't expected to commit troops to The Wellspring?

Is that a serious question? Why would TEP be expected to contribute troops to our ally? Outreach to allies to contribute pilers to another ally is not a provision of our former treaty, nor is it a reasonable provision. But if this is you indicating that TEP felt we expected them to do something that could only have been a request, and one that we haven’t even thought about since it was made and which played no role in our recent talks or the end of this treaty, I must again stress that TEP’s view on this whole matter is obviously suspect and not what one would exactly call reasonable.

About that, mr then-MoFA of TNP:

Short memory?
("still here." is Ruben, then already DMoFA, btw)

[Aenglaland]

I see the show is still going.

[Rosartemis]

It's hardly surprising that the North Pacific remains clueless about the concept of "mutual respect"... Perhaps if they didn't indulge in insulting and disrespecting their allies, they wouldn't find themselves abandoned when they finally tire of their own rudeness... A courtesy they were quick to discard when their allies were still willing to tolerate their company.

[Aleena]

It intrigues me that despite the fact that you clearly attempted to do your research, the conclusion that you came to doesn't hold water. You know for a fact that despite your use of the word required, that there is no such obligating language compelling the Mafia to always act on our behalf. That would not be military cooperation, that would be vassalage.

The actual language, as you yourself point out, is that they shall endeavor to participate in operations carried out by Malice, as in led by us, when requested. Neither Operation Hidden Vulpe nor the operation which put Pallaith into the delegacy invoked this clause, because they were not carried out by Malice. We have never requested the Mafia's assistance in any military operation conducted against The North Pacific. Feel free to tank your relationships with other regions as you see fit, but don't use a farcical interpretation of our treaty to do so by drawing a picture of Malice and WZT mutually messing with TNP that has no basis in reality.

You appear to have accidentally addressed the inconvenient truth, which is that that, for all intents and purposes, Warzone Trinidad is a vassal of the Brotherhood of Malice. Semantics aside, the Murder Inc. Corporate Charter has the effect of requiring Warzone Trinidad to participate in military operations if it is requested by BoM. You are correct insofar as, yes, that provision of the treaty is one which vassalizes the Warzone Trinidad Mafia to BoM.

Of course, it is hardly surprising that the provision has never been invoked, because WZT is a region whose membership is almost entirely cosmopolitan. Asking for units representing WZT is rather redundant when those units are already present from the various other raider military organizations they are a part of, which together form a sphere of regions subordinate to BoM interests.

A supposedly neutral region such as The East Pacific really has no grounds to object to our attack on what is essentially a front for BoM members and affiliates.

This whole conception that raiderdom took over WZT and made it a colony is quite an interesting narrative, and also one that is quite divorced from reality. Fact is defenders were unwilling to give the fledgling Warzone Trindad Corporation any assurances of security because they "don't intervene in Warzones". This left the only logical option for the natives of WZT to approach raiders of their own volition to ask for security assurances from them, something Malice and later on Astoria, were more then happy to provide. We have always been an independent government, and always tried to leave the door open for defender collaboration. We never engaged in any first strike against the North Pacific. We were not present on the deltips of TNP or The Wellspring. We always wanted independence, and Malice respected and was willing to allow us to have that. We were never part of TNP's war or wanted to be until they made us one. As thanks, TNP invaded us twice and the second time when they did it again after being warned, they faced consequences, and act surprised.

If you're so caught up on Malice's relations with WZT, the opportunity to do something about that was when Warzone Trinidad wanted and was trying to work with you. But we only want what we can't have, don't we?

If you wish to maintain BoM's snake-oil "friendship," than that is entirely your prerogative, although I would note that BoM has not even lifted a finger to defend you against the two destructive raids you have suffered. Conversely, you can hardly be surprised that, when you align yourselves with regions that engage in regular provocation and aggression against other regions, you are considered to be their associates and thus suffer the brunt of military retaliation (especially as you are a warzone.) The only parties who have "acted surprised" in this case are the regions who find this utterly normal concept either difficult to grasp or offensive.

MGC feederites never cease to fascinate me. Tell me, Comfed, why would one from neither of the two regions signed on to the treaty think they have a better understanding of the treaty than those that wrote it and abide by it? I can tell you from first-hand discussions that no one in the Brotherhood nor the Corporation believes that that clause requires the mafia to always side with the Brotherhood. That you think it does speaks more to your ignorance of how raider treaties tend to work and the regions involved in general than it does to the independence of The Warzone Trinidad Corporation

[Pallaith]

Is that a serious question? Why would TEP be expected to contribute troops to our ally? Outreach to allies to contribute pilers to another ally is not a provision of our former treaty, nor is it a reasonable provision. But if this is you indicating that TEP felt we expected them to do something that could only have been a request, and one that we haven’t even thought about since it was made and which played no role in our recent talks or the end of this treaty, I must again stress that TEP’s view on this whole matter is obviously suspect and not what one would exactly call reasonable.

So when you asked that TEP stand up to those that del-tipped The Wellspring in January, what did you expect from them?

Calling the world to take action against malignant actors and speaking to an ally in a formal diplomatic setting where we give explicit requests and lay out expectations are not the same thing. Do you think they’re the same thing?

Obviously TEP’s former MoFA thinks so, since he’s citing my off the cuff snarky remark in a Discord server as if it’s equivalent to our FA team asking TEP to take some sort of action. I appreciate this though because I think it’s painting the picture much better than my words had been up to this point.

And I know the cabinet minister recently hired by TEP, someone who participated in our delegate tip and the delegate tip of our ally, and who TEP angrily insisted they had every right to appoint and we had no right to take issue with it, isn’t in here talking about mutual respect. That’s too silly to be real.

[The Ambis]

Obviously TEP’s former MoFA thinks so,

Did I miss the part where Altys was fired? Or am I reading this wrong

[Angeloid Astraea]

Calling the world to take action against malignant actors and speaking to an ally in a formal diplomatic setting where we give explicit requests and lay out expectations are not the same thing. Do you think they’re the same thing?

You were replying directly to the Vice-Delegate of TEP, asking if they were sorry enough for The Wellspring to stand up to those that del-tipped you. That's not calling "the world" to take action. The screenshot is right there and you're still trying to spin it!

Obviously TEP’s former MoFA thinks so, since he’s citing my off the cuff snarky remark in a Discord server as if it’s equivalent to our FA team asking TEP to take some sort of action. I appreciate this though because I think it’s painting the picture much better than my words had been up to this point.

"Former" MoFA? Are you wishcasting?

And I know the cabinet minister recently hired by TEP, someone who participated in our delegate tip and the delegate tip of our ally, and who TEP angrily insisted they had every right to appoint and we had no right to take issue with it, isn’t in here talking about mutual respect. That’s too silly to be real.

After what happened with HumanSanity, I'm surprised TNP still tries to press its allies on controversial cabinet appointments. Obviously regions will prioritize contributing members of their community over rude and increasingly hostile external entities.

[Notanam]

congratulations to the East Pacific

[Bormiar]

Why should TNP be expected to cater to an "ally" which clearly would favor a sparse, short-lived embassy relationship with a warzone government over a ten-year treaty with itself? Why should TNP be expected not to counter the political movements of a region with which it's at-war?

The treaty was best gone. TEP clearly wasn't contributing anything to the relationship and clearly didn't plan on contributing. And, possibly, given what I've seen of its government, wouldn't have been capable of contributing anything more than its own blunders.

[Comfed]

MGC feederites never cease to fascinate me. Tell me, Comfed, why would one from neither of the two regions signed on to the treaty think they have a better understanding of the treaty than those that wrote it and abide by it? I can tell you from first-hand discussions that no one in the Brotherhood nor the Corporation believes that that clause requires the mafia to always side with the Brotherhood. That you think it does speaks more to your ignorance of how raider treaties tend to work and the regions involved in general than it does to the independence of The Warzone Trinidad Corporation

I have a reasonably clear understanding of the way in which "raider treaties" - by which I assume you mean the treaties signed between the regions of the Brotherhood of Malice sphere of raiding - work differently from treaties between other regions. Treaties between other regions tend to be based around mutual respect and friendship. On the other hand, treaties with the sort of region you associate with are, almost without exception, based on a formalizing a relationship by which one region asserts its dominance over another. The absurd nature of the relationship between Warzone Trinidad and BoM, where they are supposedly allied, but BoM has never been required to come to the defence of its warzone "ally," is illustrative.

After what happened with HumanSanity, I'm surprised TNP still tries to press its allies on controversial cabinet appointments. Obviously regions will prioritize contributing members of their community over rude and increasingly hostile external entities.

Rosartemis was appointed to the cabinet of The East Pacific following her eager participation in the raid of Europe. A region would have to be deeply ignorant, willfully blind, or have little regard for their allies - I think, in this case, it is all three - to think that doing such a thing would not be a cause for concern.

[Madjack]

It's hardly surprising that the North Pacific remains clueless about the concept of "mutual respect"... Perhaps if they didn't indulge in insulting and disrespecting their allies, they wouldn't find themselves abandoned when they finally tire of their own rudeness... A courtesy they were quick to discard when their allies were still willing to tolerate their company.

This is one of the biggest laughs I've had today, given your track record.

[Angeloid Astraea]

So, I look forward to the next ally TNP pisses off and then blames for everything that went wrong. Who do we think is next? TRR? Lazarus?

[Halsoni]

If arguing about a terrible WA policy = flame-baiting, then sure. That's what happens when your delegate says that the "general likability of a person" should factor into whether or not they should receive a C/C. Sorry, not sorry.

You got barred from talking in a debate channel by server moderation because all you were able to do was start heated arguments by any means necessary for your own entertainment. You even got warned by server admins that repeated malicious behaviour of the sort would result in such, yet you persevered. Yeah those arguments were linked to your comments about TEP and the WA, and? Content doesn't matter, your behaviour does.

I left TEP's server in my last server sweep, so I don't have the logs. All I know is that I argued in a robust manner and people weren't able to handle that. I can't recall any formal warnings from any kind of moderation, nor was I made aware of the barring from your WA channel.

Anyway, have fun continuing to bad-mouth TNP in the BoM server.

[Angeloid Astraea]

Anyway, have fun continuing to bad-mouth TNP in the BoM server.

Have fun watching. >=]

[Podria]

One step further from uniting each and every player on this godforsaken website to burn it all to the ground and free us from the shackles of 2003 web design. /s

In all seriousness, given all that has been going on in this thread and the behaviour I have seen from TNP and company towards both their allies and their enemies, it's not surprising that their list of allies is shrinking nor am I surprised that they're immediately ready to go on the offensive. I look forward to seeing TEP spread its wings and fly as an independent region - I have a lot of respect for your entire government, especially Altys whom I have had many a positive interaction with.

[Halsoni]

Anyway, have fun continuing to bad-mouth TNP in the BoM server.

Have fun watching. >=]

Can't sadly, wish I could

[Argostrobea]

Can someone summarize all of the events that have happened? I want to get a grip on the situation.

Preferably one person from each side. Like Pallaith and angeloid astraea.

[Madjack]

it's not surprising that their list of allies is shrinking

Not sure this is actually happening, given it's two new ones and two repealed ones in recent times...

[Angeloid Astraea]

Can someone summarize all of the events that have happened? I want to get a grip on the situation.

Preferably one person from each side. Like Pallaith and angeloid astraea.

Altys would be better for that.

it's not surprising that their list of allies is shrinking

Not sure this is actually happening, given it's two new ones and two repealed ones in recent times...

Who are the new ones?

[Bormiar]

Can someone summarize all of the events that have happened? I want to get a grip on the situation.

Preferably one person from each side. Like Pallaith and angeloid astraea.

Ok... WZT cozied up to raiders, turning themselves into a vassal state of BoM, TNP responded by invading WZT, as part of their ongoing war with raiderdom; TEP didn't like that TNP had invaded an embassy of TEP, and giving that the TNP-TEP treaty wasn't bearing much fruit for either side, that treaty collapsed; and TEP was the first to repeal; and now we're here.

That's the basic summary. There were (as you can see hinted above) plenty of little things that further drove the two regions apart.

In my view, it was TEP's confused and parasitic notion of "neutrality" that drove them apart. As we can see here, "neutrality" is a pipe dream.