b3x
-
Posts
358 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by b3x
-
-
I am out
-
by your I meant your alliances, but I am not surprised at all that a proposal made by you never saw the light of day.
Therein lies a very dangerous misconception. Never assume that all nations identify solely with the alliance that the nation chose to serve them.
-
concessions and compromise are the same thing in this situation. PC made a concession in allowing third parties to pay TPF's reps TPF made a concession to allow PC to get reps.
Your implication that the people who made concessions just shows that you were arrogant enough to think that your original proposal was the only way it could or should be done.
Either that or you were saying TPF were losers for allowing the reps to be paid in which case you are just an $@!, which in retrospect is probably the most likely scenario.
Believe me ... my "original proposal" never saw the light of day.
-
Compromise is for people who aren't so arrogant as to think that their way is the only way.
Have you been saving that up and it misfired, or is that supposed to be directed at me?
-
You get your blood money and TPF doesnt have to give it to you, seems like a win win to me.
I don't see blood money, just more concessions. And concessions are for losers.
-
Wow ... very disappointing.
-
I know you like to twist things to make them fit your agenda but I would like to think most people are smart enough to see through the crap you are spewing.
but just in case;
TPF is not saying "treaty breakers can't get reps" they are saying they will not pay reps for a war with an alliance that broke a treaty with them to enter that war.
It is nice to see you give up on trying to say that PC didn't break the treaty though I was getting bored of beating you over the head with the logic of that argument.
Logic? sorry i thought we abandoned logic for nonsensical musings ... that's where i was going
-
I don't believe they asked GOONS and \m/ for reps after they broke a treaty with them. PC broke a treaty with TPF and now wants to get money for breaking a treaty with them. Big difference.
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.
-
Cancelling a treaty is not the same as breaking a treaty. Breaking the treaty means that you did something not legally allowed by the terms of teh treaty, which is what PC did.
PC did not follow the terms of the treaty which I have already proven and you seem to refuse to refute since it is not convenient for your argument or because you can't.
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?
-
I notice how you completely ignored my post and the wording of the treaty in order to continue with your agenda.
If the lease said "moving out breaks the lease" then moving out would break the lease.
Just like the treaty said it had to be broken to be rendered null and void. don't let facts get in the way of your party line though.
giving notice would also break the nap ... so your saying there is no legitimate way to end the agreement?
-
Of course a treaty is nullified if it's broken. But it was still... Y'know... Broken.
-Bama
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 that in order to work within the owrding of the treaty they had to break it, either way they broke it. In the DoW they even satetd that they broke it.
Fact PC broke the treaty.
Good day to you sir.
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.
-
The fact is that PC broke the treaty to cancel it. Good day to you as well.
How did PC break the treaty?
-
What you seem to fail to understand is that if TPF really doesn't want to send PC any reps, there is nothing you or they can do about it. All the whining and complaining in the world won't change that simple fact. If TPF is committed to never paying PC reps you can't make them no matter how big and bad you think you are.
Wow, what a profound statement. I think it is time to lay this thread to rest. Can anything more really be said after that?
-
I don't think anyone from TPF said they were hard terms. They said that they are not going to give PC anything, nor should they. It doesn't matter how the treaty was worded or what the perceived intent was, that facts are that PC broke the treaty not TPF and thus deserve nothing from TPF but their scorn.
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.
-
Erm... Yes, we can decide who we pay reps to. It's easy. Say "nope, not paying reps to those guys."
We're not trying to take a great moral stand here. I don't know why you thought we were.
-Bama
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 ...
-
Oh I did, I just discounted it because it all sounded like political double talk that really said nothing at all. You seem to want to support PC in this, but are afraid that if it turns out that public opinion really goes away from them, you are covered in that direction to.
Talk about other people reading, why don't you read back yourself. If there is proof that it was done this way, other than the standard "I know it was cause I know" then show it. Anyone. Given the number of spies that have been in and out of TPF, esp from PC, it should be easy to find. I mean it was common knowledge according to everyone that we did it on purpose, so where is it.
Oh, and by the way, I was responding to someone else......I have always fond that when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. (in case you didn't get it, I threw a generalization out there with no names attached and you got upset, probably means you felt like it refered to you.)
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 ...
-
Forward Polaris!
Ya, something like that ...
or something like LOLWUT
-
The nations who wanted reps weren't allowed to have reps because the leader of the alliance that they pledged their allegience too saw fit not to require reps.
I do not understand how to make it any clearer
how would you know? No one requested reps as far as you knew.
-
I don't see it as much of an effort really. Some of the alliances surely stated their reason for not wanting reps and if other alliances that wanted reps agreed with them and decided against forcing out reps I can't see what the problem is. Discussing wether or not to take reps is no evil act it's very standard to discuss the terms as a group when several alliances give peace to a single alliance. You have to excuse me if I fail to see the crime you're trying to pin on the alliances not wanting reps.
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
-
Sorry you don't like my answer.
Your answer was offensive, and disrespectful. It made me angry. I expect an apology.
-
Finally if by 'some' you mean that some alliance leaders wanted reps but were forced not to demand any by leaders from other alliances then I simply don't belive you are right. I'm sure that reps were discussed and the possibility of asking for reps was brought up by some alliances. I'm sure there were arguments both for and against taking reps. In the end all alliances decided against demanding reps. Unless you have any proof I don't belive any decision was forced on anyone. discussing a question is not the same as forcing people to do what you say.
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?
Peace and all that Jazz
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[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 ...