Timberland Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314890288' post='2792242'] You're wrong, the difference is that NPO was the one who wanted the downgrade. [/quote] ok you're right i'm wrong, i'm not going to get in to a "NO U" with your chain of idiosynchronicities Edited September 1, 2011 by Timberland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314890288' post='2792242'] You're wrong, the difference is that NPO was the one who wanted the downgrade. Please nominated one alliance who were loyal to us and as reward we canceled/downgraded on them when they become useless to us. The fact that that was a hard decision changes not to Invicta, after all, the treaty was downgraded nevertheless. [/quote] You're narrowly focusing on the treaty actually being downgraded and not the reasons thereof. You are focusing on the history of the treaty, and not the context of what's happening right now. You're basically ignoring everything that would cause your claim to be less debatable and be more one sided. I'm not ignorant to the spin game, and this is some !@#$%* spinning going on here. Yeah, a lot of us are upset by this event. And yeah a large part of that is because we've been friends for so damn long. So you can assume that whatever caused this downgrade was a pretty big thing to the both of us. Edited September 1, 2011 by Jrenster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1314890776' post='2792247'] ok you're right i'm wrong, i'm not going to get in to a "NO U" with your chain of idiosynchronicities [/quote] NO U Did I do it right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1314890776' post='2792247'] ok you're right i'm wrong. [/quote] Now tell me something new. [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1314890738' post='2792246'] No. You're the one implying that Invicta were dropped because they were useless when it certainly doesn't look to be the case. What makes you say that? What good reason do you have to back up your claim? The burden of proof is yours. [/quote] As expected your accusations that we've done worse lack of facts to base yours claims. Why I'm not surprised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314892870' post='2792259'] Now tell me something new. As expected your accusations that we've done worse lack of facts to base yours claims. Why I'm not surprised? [/quote] I'm not accusing them of dropping someone because they're useless, you on the other hand are. In fact I asked them in private what brought this downgrade on before running my mouth and they told me. Diplomacy is a funny thing huh? Besides the idea that you're worse than they are is my personal opinion which I don't feel the need to explain in any great detail, your accusation that they were dropped because they were useless is also your personal opinion until you provide a rational explanation with factual evidence to back up your claims. The difference being I accept my claim is just an opinion, you're talking as if what you're saying is factual. Edited September 1, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1314893241' post='2792265'] I'm not accusing them of dropping someone because they're useless, you on the other hand are. In fact I asked them in private what brought this downgrade on before running my mouth and they told me. Diplomacy is a funny thing huh? Besides the idea that you're worse than they are is my personal opinion which I don't feel the need to explain in any great detail, your accusation that they were dropped because they were useless is also your personal opinion until you [b]provide a rational explanation[/b] with factual evidence to back up your claims. [/quote] JA do you see who you're arguing with? I've bolded that part where your expectations are higher than CSM on a April 20th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314894005' post='2792268'] JA do you see who you're arguing with? I've bolded that part where your expectations are higher than CSM on a April 20th. [/quote] Good point, I always forget this when I'm posting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1314893241' post='2792265'] I'm not accusing them of dropping someone because they're useless, you on the other hand are. In fact I asked them in private what brought this downgrade on before running my mouth and they told me. Diplomacy is a funny thing huh? Besides the idea that you're worse than they are is my personal opinion which I don't feel the need to explain in any great detail, your accusation that they were dropped because they were useless is also your personal opinion until you provide a rational explanation with factual evidence to back up your claims. The difference being I accept my claim is just an opinion, you're talking as if what you're saying is factual. [/quote] I never claimed that what I said about this cancellation was a concrete fact, I was just voicing my opinion since NPO preferred to not inform the reasons for their downgrade, and until they decide to do so my opinion will be that NPO downgraded their treaty with Invicta to be able to make new and "cooler" friends. They are more than welcome to prove me wrong but until now all I saw was a poor and useless excuse that it was a "hard decision". However when you come to this thread and says that my alliance would have done worse with Invicta if they were our allies but can't back up your claims with any fact or point when we have done something like that before, so expect me to call you out and see you run in circles and resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks when you have nothing but empty hands to back up your accusation against my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314895423' post='2792284'] I never claimed that what I said about this cancellation was a concrete fact, I was just voicing my opinion since NPO preferred to not inform the reasons for their downgrade, and until they decide to do so my opinion will be that NPO downgraded their treaty with Invicta to be able to make new and "cooler" friends. They are more than welcome to prove me wrong but until now all I saw was a poor and useless excuse that it was a "hard decision". However when you come to this thread and says that my alliance would have done worse with Invicta if they were our allies but can't back up your claims with any fact or point when we have done something like that before, so expect me to call you out and see you run in circles and resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks when you have nothing but empty hands to back up your accusation against my alliance. [/quote] So until you get all the facts, you'll just automatically assume the stupidest reasoning possible? I suppose if that's how your boat floats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Congratulations on this fabulous downgrade Pacifica! Perhaps Polaris could learn from your competence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314895423' post='2792284'] However when you come to this thread and says that my alliance would have done worse with Invicta if they were our allies but can't back up your claims with any fact or point when we have done something like that before, so expect me to call you out and see you run in circles and resort to [i]ad hominem[/i] attacks when you have nothing but empty hands to back up your accusation against my alliance. [/quote] IAA or TIO ring any bells there champ? Edited September 1, 2011 by Leet Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 So many good things being said about NPO...WHERE IS THE CN I ONCE KNEW /me runs away sobbing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1314896243' post='2792293'] So until you get all the facts, you'll just automatically assume the stupidest reasoning possible? I suppose if that's how your boat floats. [/quote] No, I'll assume the most likely reasons: The first being the one that I already mentioned, the second being Invicta treaty upgrade with SOS what is a less worse but still a terrible reason to cancel a treaty with a notable loyal and long term ally. I agree that SOS is a horrible alliance hated by almost everyone, but when NPO was the most hated alliance in Planet Bob Invicta didn't downgraded their treaty with you because of that, on the contrary, they stood by your side not once, but twice. [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1314896958' post='2792302'] IAA or TIO ring any bells there champ? [/quote] Do you realize that IAA and TIO were the ones to wanted to downgrade their treaty with us right? Not the other way around or you could have a point. Edited September 1, 2011 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) I don't see why people (D34th) are arguing about this. I have recently been chatting to NPO in our forums and on their forums, the general sense I get from them is they are making good FA changes for their alliance. They are trying to progress forward, but of coarse once you sign with someone then you have to stay with them forever? It doesn't work that way. Sometimes people part because they seek different goals. I for one commend the NPO for making radical changes to their FA policy. (dropping down to an (odp) is quite a move for an alliance that has generally been quite close to rectum ignoratum. Continue with your pointless rhetorical arguing, you guys should know better than to argue with d34th, it's like banging your head against a brick wall. Edited September 1, 2011 by Hiro Nakara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314897301' post='2792309'] No, I'll assume the most likely reasons: The first being the one that I already mentioned, the second being Invicta treaty upgrade with SOS what is a less worse but still a terrible reason to cancel a treaty with a notable loyal and long term ally. I agree that SOS is a horrible alliance hated by almost everyone, but when NPO was the most hated alliance in Planet Bob Invicta didn't downgraded their treaty with you because of that, on the contrary, they stood by your side not once, but twice. Do you realize that IAA and TIO were the ones to wanted to downgrade their treaty with us right? Not the other way around or you could have a point. [/quote] If you were sitting around with all the facts at hand and were making opinions on said facts, then I'd be like "yeah sure I'll disagree but whatever". But instead you're sitting around making the most naive and unrealistic and uncomplicated-- [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1314897526' post='2792310'] I don't see why people (D34th) are arguing about this. I have recently been chatting to NPO in our forums and on their forums, the general sense I get from them is they are making good FA changes for their alliance. They are trying to progress forward, but of coarse once you sign with someone then you have to stay with them forever? It doesn't work that way. Sometimes people part because they seek different goals. I for one commend the NPO for making radical changes to their FA policy. (dropping down to an (odp) is quite a move for an alliance that has generally been quite close to rectum ignoratum. Continue with your pointless rhetorical arguing, you guys should know better than to argue with d34th, it's like banging your head against a brick wall. [/quote] Yeah you're right. $%&@ this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1314897793' post='2792311'] If you were sitting around with all the facts at hand and were making opinions on said facts, then I'd be like "yeah sure I'll disagree but whatever". But instead you're sitting around making the most naive and unrealistic and uncomplicated-- Yeah you're right. $%&@ this. [/quote] Detractors will be detractors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314897301' post='2792309'] No, I'll assume the most likely reasons: The first being the one that I already mentioned, the second being Invicta treaty upgrade with SOS what is a less worse but still a terrible reason to cancel a treaty with a notable loyal and long term ally. I agree that SOS is a horrible alliance hated by almost everyone, but when NPO was the most hated alliance in Planet Bob Invicta didn't downgraded their treaty with you because of that, on the contrary, they stood by your side not once, but twice. Do you realize that IAA and TIO were the ones to wanted to downgrade their treaty with us right? Not the other way around or you could have a point. [/quote] Maybe NPO have no desire to burn for an alliance they don't care about but Invicta does wish to burn for said alliance. Entirely understandable in my opinion and I can certainly relate to that. Edited September 1, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeCoHo Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1314898260' post='2792316'] Maybe NPO have no desire to burn for an alliance they don't care about but Invicta does wish to burn for said alliance. Entirely understandable in my opinion and I can certainly relate to that. [/quote] Holy Admin, you must be some magical seer or something who can understand what's going on around here! (yeah I know you know. ) Edited September 1, 2011 by NeCoHo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Crush a bit, little bit. Roll it up, take a hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='NeCoHo' timestamp='1314898666' post='2792321'] Holy Admin, you must be some magical seer or something who can understand what's going on around here! (yeah I know you know. ) [/quote] I do, it's the yellow guy in my sig with the all seeing laser eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 A treaty is not an eternal lasting bond that must continue forever based upon [b]prior[/b] loyalties. That concept in itself is rather silly. Ultimately the leaders of an alliance must make hard decisions to propel their alliance towards the goals and ambitions they are trying to achieve. Those of you attempting to berate Pacifica for doing exactly this are making yourselves seem rather silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1314897526' post='2792310'] I don't see why people (D34th) are arguing about this. I have recently been chatting to NPO in our forums and on their forums, the general sense I get from them is they are making good FA changes for their alliance. They are trying to progress forward, but of coarse once you sign with someone then you have to stay with them forever? It doesn't work that way. Sometimes people part because they seek different goals. I for one commend the NPO for making radical changes to their FA policy. (dropping down to an (odp) is quite a move for an alliance that has generally been quite close to rectum ignoratum. Continue with your pointless rhetorical arguing, you guys should know better than to argue with d34th, it's like banging your head against a brick wall. [/quote] [quote name='youwish959' timestamp='1314899504' post='2792328'] A treaty is not an eternal lasting bond that must continue forever based upon [b]prior[/b] loyalties. That concept in itself is rather silly. Ultimately the leaders of an alliance must make hard decisions to propel their alliance towards the goals and ambitions they are trying to achieve. Those of you attempting to berate Pacifica for doing exactly this are making yourselves seem rather silly. [/quote] All of this...well stated. /thread, except for D34th who is free try to negotiate a MDoAP on behalf of Invicta with NpO if he loves them that much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Kalasin - Hello there, has there ever been a time I haven't owned up to what I have said? Ever? Wait you wouldn't know because you have never had the nuts to just ask me to my face. But that is alright, here we go. I don't recall saying they were a second rate alliance, but its entirely possible after some incidents directly between Invicta and I. If you have seen logs, please share them, that way I can address the situation properly vs some behind the doors bs. Come on Kalasin I'm not scared. Put it out there or got back under a bridge. Not to mention you could have asked in the ODN q&a where you have had no problems talking and I certainly have had no problem answering. You wanted a show on the OWF for whatever reason so fine, here we are. Put up or shut up. Why the downgrade? Simply put, Invicta is walking a path we cannot follow. Every alliance has to find, define or adjust its path and for that path to be their own. We have no right to interfere in Invicta's doing this. For us to impede on that will cause nothing but bitterness. We believe the path they are going is a death march. Feeling that way, no we will not have 400 Pacificans pave the road in needless blood for something the NPO disagrees with so deeply, not even for Invicta. Instead we will be here once they have walked the road as long as they want to. Invicta and NPO are still very deep friends and as friends you have to know when to let go. It doesn't matter how much thought or anguish goes into a decision, some just have to be made. If you cannot see that, I wish you the best of luck in growing up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1314897526' post='2792310'] I don't see why people (D34th) are arguing about this. [/quote] I really didn't expect you to saw this, people like you will congratulate or criticize someone based only in your shortsighted biased opinion while I'm consistent with my critics or praises not matter who make the move. Also I was not arguing, I just posted my opinion, not my fault if people started to quote me just to later realize they were wrong and instead of accept the fact started to use the poor excuse "I should not argue with D34th, he sucks!" so why the hell they started to quote me? If your best exit move is that one, please just ignore my posts. [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1314898260' post='2792316'] Maybe NPO have no desire to burn for an alliance they don't care about but Invicta does wish to burn for said alliance. Entirely understandable in my opinion and I can certainly relate to that. [/quote] Do you ever heard of about non-chaining clauses? May be my mistake here was judge Invicta - NPO relationship as a two way street one, when that is clearly not the case. That's always my fault that I tend to judge people by the standards that I held. [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1314897793' post='2792311'] If you were sitting around with all the facts at hand and were making opinions on said facts, then I'd be like "yeah sure I'll disagree but whatever". But instead you're sitting around making the most naive and unrealistic and uncomplicated-- [/quote] If you don't like people making assumptions, be clear about your reasons next time. Also the fact that GOONS and Umbrella members are defending NPO make me giggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1314900474' post='2792334'] All of this...well stated. /thread, except for D34th who is free try to negotiate a MDoAP on behalf of Invicta with NpO if he loves them that much [/quote] This has to be a first aye You agree with something I post, or I actually post something worth agreeing with. 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.