Letum Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Epiphanus' timestamp='1303095936' post='2692272'] I don't really think you think before you post. The nations TOP will be hitting at present (as most of their alliance is still cowering in peace mode) are not ones that MK's top tier could be using against he NPO's upper tier. P [/quote] The nations that they are helping are, however, nations that would be facing NPO's "top tier" after it gets knocked down to their range. Edited April 18, 2011 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1303096014' post='2692275'] So you're saying that because it takes a long time for many alliances to agree on anything that those discussions are now irrelevant? No matter how you say it, you "changed targets" in the middle of peace talks. [/quote] I don't think so. I'm saying you should be either: - putting in more effort to speed things up - or if the 'coalition' approach to peace talks is taking this long then let each alliance work out peace terms separately (at least the money/tech portion which is every alliance but NPO afaik) while still keeping each other in the loop if you wish The talks aren't irrelevant but they're not going to be a roadblock to our war effort if we don't feel a full effort is being made by the opposing side to resolve the issue. I'm not sure what you meant by changing targets comment so I can't respond to that. Edited April 18, 2011 by Drai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='NorthernLights' timestamp='1303095991' post='2692274'] I'm already in love with this thread. [/quote] As am I, though I suspect for different reasons. So is CnG AFK this weekend or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='WalkerNinja' timestamp='1303096127' post='2692279'] Thanks for that history lesson, old man Schatt. What's next, "I used to be in Vox, everyone should listen to me!" It's been a couple of hours since that one. [/quote] Well, you know about being a lapdog and I know about revolution, what can I say? It was fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kencojenko Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303096111' post='2692278'] All of TOP's treaties seem to go two ways until things go south. [/quote] You can say that about our past if you like. We've done what we can to try and rebuild our reputation for the future, but only time can show the alliance we aim to be. Right now, it's quite obvious you aim to paint us as idiots/lapdogs/cowards regardless of what we do. In the simplest terms, we were asked by a treaty partner to hit someone, we hit them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandroff Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Epiphanus' timestamp='1303095936' post='2692272'] I don't really think you think before you post. The nations TOP will be hitting at present (as most of their alliance is still cowering in peace mode) are not ones that MK's top tier could be using against he NPO's upper tier. P [/quote] The same can be said about you. He said that TOP is being used to reduce the possibility that when our nations leave peace mode Legion's could come with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Oh look. TOP's attacking during negotiations. And here I thought they were against that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1303095923' post='2692271'] Its simple, the new front wasn't necessary. What will actually change in the war... not a whole lot. But this really shows that Doomhouse et al (and specifically MK) is looking to be disingenuous. The insurance clause you asked for now looks merely to be a reason to not work out peace so this little middle finger you all have tossed out proves it. NPO nations totally 1.8m NS out of peace mode and 2.475 billion from the coalition wasn't a reason to not pull this type of act. We can see the real intent. [/quote] Over-reacting any? With that comment and your last one. Last I checked the goal when at war is to *win* the war by as strong a margin as you can. If peace had been agreed to you would have a reason to be upset. But everything doesnt go on hold for weeks (months really) while you negotiate. You act like your signature was about to appear on a document in the next hour. And your implication that this says anything about the honor of your enemies makes you seem foolish. Until you agree to terms this is war. Plain and simple. And to be angry that in a war your enemies are trying to win makes me snicker. Not to mention it doesnt change things that much from a practical stand point. No matter how much NS is against them, you wont see more then 3 offensive wars on any given Legion nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenann Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303096089' post='2692277'] As I said: Y'all are reading too much into this. [/quote] this doesnt change anything? except lying and underhanded dealings. You ask the NPO coalition side to trust your coalition to honour its side of the deal we have been working on for weeks and then you pull something like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='kencojenko' timestamp='1303096307' post='2692286'] You can say that about our past if you like. We've done what we can to try and rebuild our reputation for the future, but only time can show the alliance we aim to be. Right now, it's quite obvious you aim to paint us as idiots/lapdogs/cowards regardless of what we do. In the simplest terms, we were asked by a treaty partner to hit someone, we hit them. [/quote] So you're not idiots/lapdogs/cowards you're yes-men? Have it your way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303096246' post='2692283'] Well, you know about being a lapdog and I know about revolution, what can I say? It was fate. [/quote] I'm sorry, you think there's a revolution going on here? The men in white coats will be along shortly, you'd better get a move on, Sparky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Brenann' timestamp='1303096429' post='2692290'] this doesnt change anything? except lying and underhanded dealings. You ask the NPO coalition side to trust your coalition to honour its side of the deal we have been working on for weeks and then you pull something like this. [/quote] You have to *agree* to a deal for it to be honored buddy. Not to mention I dont see how this affects anything anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandroff Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Drai' timestamp='1303096229' post='2692281'] I don't think so. I'm saying you should be either: - putting in more effort to speed things up - or if the 'coalition' approach to peace talks is taking this long then let each alliance work out peace terms separately (at least the money/tech portion which is every alliance but NPO afaik) while still keeping each other in the loop if you wish I'm not sure what you meant by changing targets comment so I can't respond to that. [/quote] You're making a huge assumption here when you say we're not putting in effort. Both sides of this discussion have been "lacking in effort" if that is what you want to say is going. I'm just going to leave it there. Our current method is how we want to go about it and we will continue to go about it that way. Changing targets, rather than escalating, is what we were told you were doing when we asked what was going on, which we all agreed would not happen. It seems like the same thing to me personally. Edited April 18, 2011 by Gandroff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1303096399' post='2692289'] Last I checked the goal when at war is to *win* the war by as strong a margin as you can. If peace had been agreed to you would have a reason to be upset. But everything doesnt go on hold for weeks (months really) while you negotiate. You act like your signature was about to appear on a document in the next hour. [/quote] Negotiations were in the 11th hour, with most major points agreed to. [quote] And your implication that this says anything about the honor of your enemies makes you seem foolish. Until you agree to terms this is war. Plain and simple. And to be angry that in a war your enemies are trying to win makes me snicker. [/quote] There was a "no-escalation" agreement. Doomhouse seems to think this does not constitute escalation. We disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Brenann' timestamp='1303096429' post='2692290'] this doesnt change anything? except lying and underhanded dealings. You ask the NPO coalition side to trust your coalition to honour its side of the deal we have been working on for weeks and then you pull something like this. [/quote] What trust are we breaking, exactly? The war is still ongoing. There were a few slots we wanted filled that TOP could fill. So we asked them to declare. I'm not sure what the big deal is supposed to be here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kencojenko Posted April 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1303096479' post='2692291'] So you're not idiots/lapdogs/cowards you're yes-men? Have it your way. [/quote] And if we'd denied the request of our treaty partner, we'd be called cowards. Really, there is no winning. You're set in your view point and there is literally nothing we can do to please you. Perhaps we should just disband? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Harmony Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 This. Is. Priceless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303096603' post='2692296'] There was a "no-escalation" agreement. Doomhouse seems to think this does not constitute escalation. We disagree. [/quote] Incorrect. A non-escalation agreement did NOT exist. There *might* have been one (I dont think even that was agreed to yet) if and when terms were signed. But they were not signed. So you are still at war. The problem here seems to be that NPO seems to think they got some sort of ceasefire for their side while negotiations went on (and on... and on). That was not the case. You are at war. Nothing was agreed to beyond the hypothetical. So getting bent out of shape over people *warring* while at *war* is pointless. Edited April 18, 2011 by OsRavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panic King Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 If it wasn't against forum rules I'd just post this........... [center][color="#FF00FF"][size="7"]Pathetic[/size][/color][/center] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cao Pai Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='kencojenko' timestamp='1303096690' post='2692299'] Perhaps we should just disband? [/quote] You wouldn't disband (sadly), you like being MK's lapdog too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='kencojenko' timestamp='1303096690' post='2692299'] And if we'd denied the request of our treaty partner, we'd be called cowards. Really, there is no winning. You're set in your view point and there is literally nothing we can do to please you. Perhaps we should just disband? [/quote] Don't ever assume to know my thoughts, you never will. In point of fact, as a sovereign alliance full of intelligent individuals (I've met some of them, so I know they're their) I would expect you to take a look around at the state of the war (the peace terms are written and sitting on the desk waiting for signatures) and not going running off declaring more wars because "you were asked to." What did you do? Hand over your brain when you signed the treaty, you lost your critical thinking skills? This robot defense is silly, like you're incapable of making a decision that isn't a foregone conclusion. You can please me by acting like you're your own alliance instead of trying to justify every step you take for the past 4 years as someone else's idea or fault or request and never [u][b]your own decision[/b][/u]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canalan Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 I agree with Lady Harmony. This is... interesting, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dev0win Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Polar must've been crapping themselves when they saw this thread. If TOP had hit them it would've been pretty funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Harmony Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [quote name='Cao Pai' timestamp='1303097057' post='2692306'] You wouldn't disband (sadly), you like being MK's lapdog too much. [/quote] This is the correct answer. 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.