b3x

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1343222779' post='3015048'] MHA didn't suffer enough. Disappointing. The jackboots of the oppressors have become worn and fray at the seams [/quote] suffer? nearly half the alliance never left peace mode ...

I am out

Therein lies a very dangerous misconception. Never assume that all nations identify solely with the alliance that the nation chose to serve them.

Believe me ... my "original proposal" never saw the light of day.

Have you been saving that up and it misfired, or is that supposed to be directed at me?

I don't see blood money, just more concessions. And concessions are for losers.

Wow ... very disappointing.

Logic? sorry i thought we abandoned logic for nonsensical musings ... that's where i was going

Seeing as TPF can declare that Treaty Breakers don't get reps, I am now declaring that Treaty Breakers cannot declare that people who end treaties in a way that the other treaty member disapproves of cannot get reps. So let is be said so let it be done. This making it up as we go along rocks my socks.

TPF broke a treaty with Goons and \M/ (among others)? Doesn't that exempt them from claiming that supposed treaty breakers don't deserve reps?

giving notice would also break the nap ... so your saying there is no legitimate way to end the agreement?

Lets take a hypothetical situation ... you sign a lease and the lease says you can get out of the lease by giving notice or moving out. Are you breaking the lease if you move out? well, if you consider "breaking" to mean ending it, then yes. However, ending an agreement doesn't always mean "breaking" it, and in this case it was explicitly noted that by simply attacking the other party, the agreement would end. Thus one concludes that the agreement was "ended" or "broken" within the terms of the agreement. I realize that logic does not back your agenda, so it is easy to dismiss what is obvious to all , but the fact remains that it was an option open to both parties to end the agreement. someone please lock this thread ...

The fact is there were two ways outlined in that treaty to render it null and void. One was to attack the other party, and the second was to give notice.

How did PC break the treaty?

Wow, what a profound statement. I think it is time to lay this thread to rest. Can anything more really be said after that?

Let me give you a lesson in Opinion and fact: The fact is: PC acted within the guidelines of the treaty as worded. Your opinion is: PC broke the treaty. See the difference there? Good day sir.

everyone knows what you are trying to do ... you are trying to sway public opinion ... get some alliances to come to the table and negotiate separate peace, and leave us out to dry. you want their leadership to say "damn, we could be out of this war if it wasn't for PC wanting reps. hmmm maybe we can just ... yadda yadda yadda". it could work ... it just might. but don't insult our intelligence and act like its some sort of issue about a nap, and that nap breakers don't deserve anything. cause everyone understands that it was a poorly written nap, and PC acted in accordance with the way it was written. PERIOD. there is no argument here, you can try to e-lawyer all you want but that fact is inescapable. your nothing more than petulant children, upset that the game isn't going the way you want it too, so your gonna try to take your ball and go home. man up, pay your reps, get on with your rebuilding, and next time you might be rolling us. seriously, you are all embarrassing yourselves, and i am embarrassed for you. have some pride, have some honor ...

turn in your bucket and mop, you're a failure. quit now. the big red button on the console, yes that one, press it. i am a voice of reason, ask anyone. EDIT: In light of Moderators warning, I would like to apologize for pointing out that Kilkenny is a bad Minister of War. Clearly that is out of line, unwarranted, and crosses the line of acceptable behavior. I would like to reword that, and simply say he is MOW challenged.

OP makes elmo cry ... ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Reparations? What a novel idea ...

Ya, something like that ... or something like LOLWUT

how would you know? No one requested reps as far as you knew. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1525430

Ahem: The question again, in the simplest terms possible: Why weren't the alliances who wanted reps, allowed to have reps? Let me give you an example answer: X and Y alliances felt that Valhala would not accept terms with reps, and those alliances wanted the fighting over as soon as possible, because their members were beginning to chafe and they were running low on lubricant. This is a plausible response, probably not the entire truth, nor something that X or Y alliance would admit to on the forums. This answer approaches a level of reason and logic that I expect, While "gee we all decided that not asking for reps was the neighborly thing to do", given the situation, doesn't pass the sniff test. (judge Judy nods approvingly) Edit: changed from X Y Z, to just X Y cause we know there were two perps

Your answer was offensive, and disrespectful. It made me angry. I expect an apology.

Again ... don't over complicate it. It is really very simple, why would those who were against reps, not allow the ones who wanted reps to get their reps? There isn't even evidence of a compromise. I see it one of two ways: Either the alliances that wanted reps were flatly refused, or they were "persuaded", "talked out of it", "shown the path of enlightenment" whatever you want to call it ... Let me recap: we have established that some alliances wanted reps. we have established that a white peace was given. we can then draw a conclusion that an effort was put forth to reverse the demands of some alliances in regards to reps. The question(s), which I am most interested in is: Why such an effort to give valhala white peace?