AirMe Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I suggested it in the other thread. MK said no. It is a major waste of slots for an alliance of MK's size. Though Branimir had a good suggestion to use one of the other alliances who are bigger and not fighting on this front as a middle man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narcicyst Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) To be honest, TPF has a valid point in this. I have always been strongly against dis-honorable allies and will continue to do so...and I have my personal opinion on this matter What bonds military allied alliances isn't just words, but trust and friendship. I would be very dis-appointed if my ally abused our treaty and used it to his advantage ignoring our friendship and trust to save his $@!. However worded, the pact is all about mutual protection and helping each other and mainly not stabbing one another in the back. That's its soul purpose. Edit: Im imagining myself paying reps to someone who dishonored our treaty. WOW! Edited July 25, 2009 by raydin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solanine Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I suggested it in the other thread. MK said no. Hell no. There is now way I'm wasting my slots like that. flak covered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It wasn't e-lawyering. I do indeed seem to recall that TPF admitted they added the clause to the treaty so they could use it for the same purpose. But TPF is trying to play the victim here, and they're trying to paint PC in as bad a light as possible, and their allies are trying to do it, too. They're still trying to stick it to PC even after TPF as an alliance has been defeated, and they wonder why there's still so much bad blood between them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I took a look at PC's declaration of war. They cited this:Article 3: Cancellation If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void. You're saying its PC's fault that you agreed to a horribly worded treaty? They took advantage of your wording. This is what all this !@#$%^&* about "e-lawyering" is about? You can try to cover your behinds all you want, but its not going to get you anywhere. Think before you put the pen to paper. They still broke the treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It is a major waste of slots for an alliance of MK's size. Though Branimir had a good suggestion to use one of the other alliances who are bigger and not fighting on this front as a middle man. And it's still a very good idea. Assuming that anyone still cares if there is a TPF in another couple of months, I don't see why something that allows them to keep their honor can't be worked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So instead of paying 20K tech to PC, you're stunting your growth in comparison to theirs eternally. Smart piece of economics, sure PC feel like they've been played for suckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Think of all the outrageous reps that were payed to you by other alliances in the past? Give up the grudge, save your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 They still broke the treaty. Except it was written by mhawk in such a way so that HE could break the treaty in much the same manner when he felt it best. So all this outrage is simply over the fact that PC found the loophole, and used it before mhawk and TPF had the opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) To be honest, TPF has a valid point in this. I have always been strongly against dis-honorable allies and will continue to do so...and I have my personal opinion on this matterWhat bonds military allied alliances isn't just words, but trust and friendship. I would be very dis-appointed if my ally abused our treaty and used it to his advantage ignoring our friendship and trust to save his $@!. However worded, the pact is all about mutual protection and helping each other and mainly not stabbing one another in the back. That's its soul purpose. Edit: Im imagining myself paying reps to someone who dishonored our treaty. WOW! It isn't quite exactly the same as this treaty was mainly an NAP that to my ecollection PC was forced to sign to avoid being rolled. The clause was a very lame one at that, and it works both ways. I imagine it crossed TPF's mind at least once to use the clause for their own needs, as they were the ones who would benefit from it at the time it was signed. It is actually quite ironic that it came back to haunt them in the long run. The lesson to be learned here folks is don't write stupid clauses, I'm looking at you too MHA. You signed the treaty TPF, should know what you are getting into. Edited July 25, 2009 by Jipps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Except it was written by mhawk in such a way so that HE could break the treaty in much the same manner when he felt it best. So all this outrage is simply over the fact that PC found the loophole, and used it before mhawk and TPF had the opportunity. I must agree with my space faring friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 They still broke the treaty. TPF showed when they attacked Soldier what they thought of their treaties. PC followed that example perfectly well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narcicyst Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So instead of paying 20K tech to PC, you're stunting your growth in comparison to theirs eternally. Smart piece of economics, sure PC feel like they've been played for suckers. Sometimes growth doesn't matter for alliances when it comes to their honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Sometimes growth doesn't matter for alliances when it comes to their honor. True enough, but this isn't about honour, it's about pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) TPF showed when they attacked Soldier what they thought of their treaties. PC followed that example perfectly well. There was no treaty with Soldier. Nothing was signed. Edited July 25, 2009 by youwish959 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) The Phoenix Federation entered this war in defense of an ally that was attacked. That our ally was attacked in an aggressive war is irrelevant WRONG. You followed an ally in an aggressive war, they fact that they $%&@ed up and jumped into a losing war instead of one more curb stomp like usual is the irrelevant part. You were not defending an ally, you were backing an ally in an aggressive action. Even with your backing they still lost. Sad, wait. No its not. You are not the good guys in this piece, you can follow a treaty, bravo for you. Would you like a medal for making sure you feed your kids too? You don't get bonus points of acting correctly. What you do get is responsibility for actions, including what treaties you hold. What you did was choose to hold a treaty of aggression with an alliance known for a history of attacking people. Edited July 25, 2009 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 There was no treaty with Soldier. Nothing was signed. They had a protectorate agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narcicyst Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It isn't quite exactly the same as this treaty was mainly an NAP that to my ecollection PC was forced to sign to avoid being rolled. My bad... Still, The NAP was made to ensure the safety of both alliances. It is a pretty much trust-related pact. I trust you not to attack me and vice-versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I took a look at PC's declaration of war. They cited this:Article 3: Cancellation If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void. You're saying its PC's fault that you agreed to a horribly worded treaty? They took advantage of your wording. This is what all this !@#$%^&* about "e-lawyering" is about? You can try to cover your behinds all you want, but its not going to get you anywhere. Think before you put the pen to paper. Just because it's legal as per the treaty itself doesn't change what it is; !@#$%^&*, that's what. Yes, PC could do it, but it doesn't make it any better a move than if the treaty was worded differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) They had a protectorate agreement. First off I was the leader of Soldier. The reason we were attacked was because Jack the Great lied to mhawk. In fact our PiAT partner, and leader, Revanche, supported TPF's action in that thread. Don't bring up stuff you've no knowledge about, please. Edited July 25, 2009 by The AUT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 They had a protectorate agreement. It was a Generals Protectorate. Nothing was signed on the part of Soldier, nor was there any non aggression/cancellation clauses. Using your alls logic, it was perfectly fine and honorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Just because it's legal as per the treaty itself doesn't change what it is; !@#$%^&*, that's what. Yes, PC could do it, but it doesn't make it any better a move than if the treaty was worded differently. Yeah, it kind of does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberSpion Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Except it was written by mhawk in such a way so that HE could break the treaty in much the same manner when he felt it best. So all this outrage is simply over the fact that PC found the loophole, and used it before mhawk and TPF had the opportunity. TPF showed when they attacked Soldier what they thought of their treaties. PC followed that example perfectly well. WRONG.You followed an ally in an aggressive war, they fact that they $%&@ed up and jumped into a losing war instead of one more curb stomp like usual is the irrelevant part. You were not defending an ally, you were backing an ally in an aggressive action. Even with your backing they still lost. Sad, wait. No its not. You are not the good guys in this piece, you can follow a treaty, bravo for you. Would you like a medal for making sure you feed your kids too? You don't get bonus points of acting correctly. What you do get is responsibility for actions, including what treaties you hold. What you did was choose to hold a treaty of aggression with an alliance known for a history of attacking people. These are the key points to this thread. Spot on gents.. Spot on.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Remember that two wrongs not make a right people, stop to tell that if TPF wronged it's fine for PC wrong too, both are wrongs that's what matter. The double standards game again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Just because it's legal as per the treaty itself doesn't change what it is; !@#$%^&*, that's what. Yes, PC could do it, but it doesn't make it any better a move than if the treaty was worded differently. You reap what you sow. TPF signed this. Is what PC did the pinnacle of honor? 'Course not. But to put the blame on imagined 'e-lawyering' on their part is ridiculous. It isn't my fault that TPF didn't put the proper amount of thought and foresight into this treaty signing. Edited July 25, 2009 by El Pilchinator 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.