Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Moderator: BigJKU316

User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by BigJKU316 »

Yeah, unless you got an email from me looking for it I have what I need.
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by BigJKU316 »

Sheets are done, as soon as we resolve this little argument I will send around turn reports and sheets.
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Tyyr »

Not much of an argument when I've got the treaty on my side.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Deepcrush »

Tyyr wrote:Not much of an argument when I've got the treaty on my side.
He's right, he only has to keep his fleet mothballed if he wants to keep the peace. He's free to exit the treaty at anytime.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Tyyr »

And you're wrong. The treaty says nothing about me having to keep the ships mothballed to keep the treaty in force.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Deepcrush »

No, the ships "Being" in mothballs is a term of the treaty. If you violate the term then the treaty is void. Again simple but here isn't the place for your political moving. I was just stating a fact since I got two pm's and a skype convo going and it was just easier to answer it in one swing.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Tyyr wrote:And you're wrong. The treaty says nothing about me having to keep the ships mothballed to keep the treaty in force.
It does, however, specify how many ships you can have active.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Deepcrush »

Since this is Tyyr's political spin-doctoring and not an OOC question anymore. I'd think it best we move this only to the IC thread from here out.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Tyyr »

No this isn't spin doctoring. You go into an actual court and they'd side with me. The contract was discharged in the manner it was written. You can't just infer things that you wish you'd put in.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Deepcrush »

Dude, blah blah blah, whatever... keep the bull in the IC so at least there we have a reason for it. Lets keep the OOC clear of it.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by BigJKU316 »

Both sides have a point. Let's just keep it in the IC thread. The treaty is sufficiently vauge that both sides could claim some standing but for most nations in the sim which don't really have strong judicial review (and even some that would) treaties are really only as good as the will to enforce them.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Deepcrush »

Honestly as a side note, I've seen lawyers throw that line in court before... they normally end up being charged with "Contempt of Council".
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
BigJKU316
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1949
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:19 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by BigJKU316 »

Deepcrush wrote:Honestly as a side note, I've seen lawyers throw that line in court before... they normally end up being charged with "Contempt of Council".
I don't doubt it. But there is no international court here to settle the matter being the issue. And even if there was the most applicable line would be Stalin's when questioned regarding what the pope thought about his actions. "How many divisions does he have?"

A treaty backed by force means a lot. One backed by nobody is basically fancy toilet paper.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by Deepcrush »

To be fair, I do like having extra toilet paper.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
Posts: 9585
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: Alpha Star Trek Sim discussion

Post by stitch626 »

:laughroll:
This is quite enjoyable. Tyyr certainly has shaken things up.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
Locked