Can we just clear this up

[Supernova9]

Breaking off relations via previously agreed methods (e.g. a 72 hour declaration before hostilities often agreed at the start of NAPs etc) IS NOT BACKSTABBING. If you agree to conditions such as that, you can't claim backstabbing when they're broken, agreements aren't indefinite.

BACKSTABBING is attacking without warning. If you agree warning before hostilities and you don't get it, that's backstabbing. If you're given warning, it's merely fulfilling the final condition of your agreement.

Discuss.

[Wandows]

not much to discuss i think.....

its so true

[K-W]

Originally posted by Rumad
was NaR given 72 hours notice?

heh, must have missed that one ;p

Was that their agreement?

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by Rumad
was NaR given 72 hours notice?

heh, must have missed that one ;p

If you're too amateur to get that into the agreement, you have no leg to stand on.

If all conditions of any agreement are fulfilled, you cannot claim backstabbing, regardless of any conditions you think 'should' be honoured. If you think they should be honoured, they should be in the agreement, if they aren't you have no-one to blame but yourself.

[Morden]

Well tbh alliance HC's should look more into this when making agreements.

If they say 24 hours is the time required to severe the treaty then fine, if they say 72 hours, its the same.

Backstabbing isnt always a bad thing it brightens the game up a lot more and gives people something to fight for, but most take this way too far and end up holding a grudge.

This is the thing which makes blocking not only necasary but inevitable, you cant tell an alliance you want there head and expect them to put it on the block for you, they will make sure they can protect your members, and this leads to allies and then to blocks.

Its as much to do with the people who force them to block as the HCs who agree to block.

It would be nice if everyone could start on a clean slate for r10 would make things much more interresting.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Rumad
Did you share target picking at one point?

If yes then yes i would say there is an agreement.

YOu misred. I meant was 72 hours the agreement? Cause if it wasnt than it wasnt wrong to not give 72 hours.

[Yaroslav]

Always found funny the 72 hours thing, as if you were going to be more ready for war by waiting 72 hours...

[Razorback]

Originally posted by Rumad
Yes Britain and US waited for weeks....

Was iraq more ready ?

[Morden]

Originally posted by Rumad
nope but NaR might have been with 72 hours

doubtful,

they've had a joint command channel with vom for quite some time, the only reason they havent worked together productively is due to the level of trust which is close to non-existance, they are being nice to each other, but productive not at all.

Nar and Vom's HC should have enbraced the opertunity to take out weet instead of being worried about not trusting each other,

i mean fs had fltv not used the fos-xeta war as an opertunity to regain more ground then i doubt fos would have been so far in front of xeta, if at all.

so did they need more time? no, they needed to get there arses in gear which is something which would probably take closer to 3 months than 3 days.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Rumad
Politically weak argument though - everyone needs time to get there **** together when fighting a numerically bigger block.

How is it a weak argument? If Weet followed its agreement with nar it didnt backstab them. Its just that simple.

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by Rumad
we are arguing semntics here. Simply you had "agreement" otherwise you wouldn't have co operated.

The argument is whether 6-8 hours was enough. I don't think it was enough or even reasonable. Just a onlookers viewpoint.

The semantics are why I started this thread. I'm fed up with people stating that any WEET alliance being dropped, or the ending of relationships with NaR was or would be backstabbing, because if conditions stated in original agreements were met, then it would not be backstabbing.

And to the whether 6-8 hours was enough, if NaR wanted more, they should have put that into the original agreement. I doubt anyone denies that WEET and NaR had an agreement, though if anyone in the know does, please correct me.

[Morden]

Originally posted by Rumad
Well no one expected the WEET block to stay together. Read petru's post on the Nar Hc thread.

The semantics are being argued, but you can't ask if 72 hours is reasonable now after the actions for the last war.

72 hours is reasonable, I just wished it was given to NaR also.

indeed, i was expecting an eclipse/rah/tot vs nos/pack/ely ;
with auld/vom fighting on the sidelines against whoever they chose.

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by Rumad
Well no one expected the WEET block to stay together. Read petru's post on the Nar Hc thread.

The semantics are being argued, but you can't ask if 72 hours is reasonable now after the actions for the last war.

72 hours is reasonable, I just wished it was given to NaR also.

I didn't use 72 as a definite value, i used it as an example figure. if I was an alliance HC, making any kind of co-operative agreement, that would be one of the first things to put into the agreement, mainly because it would be easiest to agree upon.

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by Rumad
However I do believe you can argue it wasnt in the agreement all you want, some things are just not cricket as they say in england.

You should know how often "Gentlemen's agreements" are honoured in PA.

That's why agreements happen, and if an alliance has left themselves in an agreement that can end at any time, that's their own fault.

[Supernova9]

Originally posted by Rumad
then haven't you just answered yourown question you opened this thread for?

Simply gentlemens agreements would have allowed for a better fight. The semantics are already lost for you if you state things like this.

No, the original question/discussion point of the thread was whether anyone disagreed on my classification of backstabbing, which a vast majority of board posters seem to disuse, they throw around the term backstabbing, which implies treachery of some sort, when it would merely be an ending of a formal agreement.
The agreements/treaties I specified above, if they were made correctly by parties involved would have made the fight just as fair as a gentlemen's agreement.

It was more being sick of being saying everything would be backstabbing, when it wouldn't, it would just be the ending of an agreement, and I was trying to get it into the head of the average board user. But that I guess, would require the statement to be etched onto a bullet.

[lokken]

Backstabbing in PA generally doesn't happen, as people you like and who you enjoy working with don't get attacked.

This 72 hours business is also nonsense. It just emphasises the idea of rules are there for the breaking.

NAP's of convenience between blocks can be cancelled at any time. The destruction of the enemy should be sufficient notice to bring about an immediate end to the agreement.

[Madina]

Originally posted by lokken
This 72 hours business is also nonsense. It just emphasises the idea of rules are there for the breaking.

NAP's of convenience between blocks can be cancelled at any time. The destruction of the enemy should be sufficient notice to bring about an immediate end to the agreement.

anything for a good fight

Madina

[Tawg]

Originally posted by Morden

It would be nice if everyone could start on a clean slate for r10 would make things much more interresting.

well thats saying you just acted like a dick and dont want to suffer the consiquences isnt it? if you want a clean slate, dont dirty it simple as that.

[MegaNova]

72 hours 48 hours 24 hours
its all the same bull
vvomm has had incoming for the last 700 hours
you ppl have had enough time to enjoy rl
now its our turn to enjoy rl
atm i am being attacked by 2 ppl
one is 3 times bigger then me, meaning he is 13mill
the 2nd attacker is 4 times bigger then me (you do the math this time)
and the only thing i can do is laugh.
both havent had real opposition
both havent had real targets
both are bored becouse there hasnt been a real war
both are gonna bitch against each other and accuse eachother of piggybackin
both think they are really elite when prolly only one of them is
both dont have a real life as they launch at a time normal ppl are in a pub or live in australia or the usa.

i could go on with this list
but its useless, as you are all trying to be the number one planet when most of them havent deserved it when you would compare it to dedication with current score

i can only make one real conclusion out of this,
the hc of the weet block deserve much credit for the good political game they played.
but most of their players dont deserve it to be in the top100 planets.

(this is only my vieuw on the game and not ot the alliance i am currnetly in)

[Gerbie]

I don't know if they played a good political game. It worked so far to get them top positions. But WEET will fall apart/is falling apart. They already lost a few important members. They made the game boring for all. Now how is that good?

PA crew will take measures against them to prevent them form ever doing something like this. Which might criple their alliances.

One or two of them might 'win' the round, but a lot can happen in the comming months.

I don't see any winners.

[Sergio]

72 hrs? Don't make me laugh. NaR had more than one week to prepare. Eclipse HCs were already posting 10 days before the break that it was inevitable, and that it was just a question of time. The way I see it, NaR were not organized, or were too shortsighted to see the obvious.
And to those that thought that WEET would have broken, that was more a hope than a real option. WEET knew that staying as a group they would win the WEET vs. NaR war. They just made sure VOM was bashed enough as to not pose a real threat when the split happened. I think Parracida posted a thread on this matter: "You could be ruining your round right now", or something like that.
WEET are going to win bc they played the politics like they should be played. VOM never had a chance. NaR managed to make the wrong decision every time they had to make one.

[waassaa]

got to answer on this one.

First off, there was no 72 hour or 24 hour or even 6 hour agreement.
The decision to break the Nap was somewhat thrust upon the WEET HC at that time, so as NaR had those 6 hours to prepare for war, be it defensive or attack, WEET had the same amount of time.
We didn't plan in advance.
The more organised block got the better start, and the rest is history.