WorldConqueror Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1314901202' post='2792342'] This has to be a first aye You agree with something I post, or [b]I actually post something worth agreeing with[/b]. [/quote] Who are you and what did you do with the real Hiro? D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrin Xies Posted September 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Man, Brehon must have found those "cahones" he supposedly doesn't have. For future reference, it's [i]cojones[/i]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) There you go. Cat is out of the bag. Simply put we love Invicta but it does not extend to some of it's friends. Btw, I am fan of D34th posts. Keep stirring that pot. Always a good read. Edited September 1, 2011 by Daimos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314901143' post='2792340'] [b]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. [/b] 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, [b]please just ignore my posts.[/b] 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. [b]If you don't like people making assumptions, be clear about your reasons next time.[/b] [b]Also the fact that GOONS and Umbrella members are defending NPO make me giggle.[/b] [/quote] First bold part is a great NO U!!!! Second bold part is also great advice for people, they really should ignore you. The third bold part is also a good NO U!!!! They have been pretty open about their reasons for cancelling. Last bold part is just swell. That's right you cant ever change your opinion on someone, you have to hate them permanently once you begin to hate them. Seriously? Do you never change your opinion on something? Never? I have actually began to chat to NPO and My opinion on them has changed and I'm sure some of their members opinions on me have changed. This is bad why? Unfortunately for NpO, peoples opinion wont change much of them due to your constant garbage posting habits <<I see your NOU and raise you a NOU!! Edited September 1, 2011 by Hiro Nakara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 The question ChairmanHal is that I don't need to like(in fact I don't like Invicta) someone to defend a principle, but I don't expect you to understand that either. 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='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1314901278' post='2792343'] Who are you and what did you do with the real Hiro? D: [/quote] You would be proud of the effort I have made 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='1314901143' post='2792340'] Also the fact that GOONS and Umbrella members are defending NPO make me giggle. [/quote] Hey you're talking about our eternal allies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Death even in a non chaining clause, and if anyone claims otherwise they are full of it, decisions are made, debated with friendships won and lost over them. There is no safety in non chaining, there is no safety in silence and there is no guaranty on a treaty. It all depends on what pulpit you (proverbial you) feel fits your needs. 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='1314901202' post='2792342'] This has to be a first aye You agree with something I post, or I actually post something worth agreeing with. [/quote] When you're right, you're right, and you are on this one. [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314901627' post='2792347'] The question ChairmanHal is that I don't need to like(in fact I don't like Invicta) someone to defend a principle, but I don't expect you to understand that either.[/quote] I would understand defending them in principle if in fact they need defended. Perhaps this is also a sign that Invicta needs to find a new FA path...and sooner rather than later. 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='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1314901624' post='2792346'] The third bold part is also a good NO U!!!! They have been pretty open about there reasons for cancelling. [/quote] [quote]The New Pacific Order and Invicta have decided to downgrade their treaty entitled "Mai Love it Asploded" from a MDoAP to an ODoAP, [b]reasons have been communicated in private[/b]. We will remain friends and share our Oreos and Milk. (Milk to be supplied by Moo-Cows). The NPO wishes Invicta the best of luck in their future and we look forward to working with them in their future[/quote]. Very clear! [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1314901624' post='2792346'] Last bold part is just swell. That's right you cant ever change your opinion on someone, you have to hate them permanently once you begin to hate them. Seriously? Do you never change your opinion on something? Never? I have actually began to chat to NPO and My opinion on them has changed and I'm sure some of their members opinions on me have changed. This is bad why? [/quote] As expected you can't comprehend that the fact that I'm criticizing or praising someone doesn't mean that I love or hate them. As I said in my last post for people like base all your opinions on whether you like them or not, not matter what they do. [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1314901728' post='2792351'] Death even in a non chaining clause, and if anyone claims otherwise they are full of it, decisions are made, debated with friendships won and lost over them. There is no safety in non chaining, there is no safety in silence and there is no guaranty on a treaty. It all depends on what pulpit you (proverbial you) feel fits your needs. [/quote] So the reason was in fact their upgrade with SOS? See? You could had said that in the OP and avoided at least half of this argumentation Edited September 1, 2011 by D34th 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='D34th' timestamp='1314901143' post='2792340'] 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. 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] If you look at all of our mutually binding treaties you'll see they're all non-chaining, so yes I did heard of it. Though I'm sure if anyone cited a non-chaining clause as a reason for not backing someone you (and many others) would still jump down their throats for it. I'm defending them because what they've done doesn't warrant receiving any !@#$%^&* from you or anyone else. They aren't hanging anyone out to dry, they've accepted that they're both on different paths and have adjusted their treaty accordingly. You are attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 This is better for both parties. Good luck to all involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314902137' post='2792354'] So the reason was in fact their upgrade with SOS? See? You could had said that in the OP and avoided at least half of this argumentation [/quote] There was/is more to it. But in part, yes (and that is overly simplified). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1314902333' post='2792358'] If you look at all of our mutually binding treaties you'll see they're all non-chaining, so yes I did heard of it. Though I'm sure if anyone cited a non-chaining clause as a reason for not backing someone you (and many others) would still jump down their throats for it. I'm defending them because what they've done doesn't warrant receiving any !@#$%^&* from you or anyone else. They aren't hanging anyone out to dry, they've accepted that they're both on different paths and have adjusted their treaty accordingly. You are attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill. [/quote] Now you are making assumptions again, in case that you don't know all NpO treaties are non chaining too and unless you can show where I criticized someone for not activating a non-chaining treaty please don't say that. Funny fact about the second part:: Weren't you(Umbrella, GOONS and MK) who started to criticize Xiphosis when he canceled his treaty with GOONS because MK signed a treaty with TOP and GOD didn't wanted to be linked to TOP? But now is ok for NPO downgrade their treaty with a loyal and long term ally because they UPGRADED an already existent treaty? The double standards on this boards never ceases to amazes me. [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1314902939' post='2792361'] There was/is more to it. But in part, yes (and that is overly simplified). [/quote] Thanks for the clarification. Edited September 1, 2011 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Best of luck going forward to both of my allies. Downgrading is never a decision that one goes into lightly. Different text on a treaty does not end a relationship, and often times, it does not even have to change the relationship itself. Undoubtedly NPO and Invicta will continue to work closely together and at one point or another in the future, great things will come from their relationship once again. 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='1314902137' post='2792354'] So the reason was in fact their upgrade with SOS? See? You could had said that in the OP and avoided at least half of this argumentation [/quote] Or you could have, hold on get this, not make the least logical assumptions anybody could make here, talk to some people to get the facts and [b]then[/b] make well-formed opinions. I think that would have avoided all this argumentation. I believe the reason we didn't explicitly post the reasons was because we didn't want to end up fighting each other on the OWF like Polar and cancelled friends have been doing. But since now basically everyone and their mothers know, there's really no point in trying to keep this private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 Never expected to see this, frankly, but since it doesn't affect my alliance in anyway I can simply shrug, wish everyone the best, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314901143' post='2792340'] Also the fact that GOONS and Umbrella members are defending NPO make me giggle. [/quote] I don't understand where you get off saying things like this. Why should someones alliance affiliation effects where they stand on an issue? 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='D34th' timestamp='1314902962' post='2792362'] Funny fact about the second part:: Weren't you(Umbrella, GOONS and MK) who started to criticize Xiphosis when he canceled his treaty with GOONS because MK signed a treaty with TOP and GOD didn't wanted to be linked to TOP? [/quote] There were other discussions behind closed doors that made that particular situation a bit more unique. 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='D34th' timestamp='1314902137' post='2792354'] . Very clear! As expected you can't comprehend that the fact that I'm criticizing or praising someone doesn't mean that I love or hate them. As I said in my last post for people like base all your opinions on whether you like them or not, not matter what they do. So the reason was in fact their upgrade with SOS? See? You could had said that in the OP and avoided at least half of this argumentation [/quote] Had you approached them with some kind of respectful attitude and asked them the reason, I'm confident they would have explained it like they have done so already in this thread. 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='1314902962' post='2792362'] Now you are making assumptions again, in case that you don't know all NpO treaties are non chaining too and unless you can show where I criticized someone for not activating a non-chaining treaty please don't say that. Funny fact about the second part:: Weren't you(Umbrella, GOONS and MK) who started to criticize Xiphosis when he canceled his treaty with GOONS because MK signed a treaty with TOP and GOD didn't wanted to be linked to TOP? But now is ok for NPO downgrade their treaty with a loyal and long term ally because they UPGRADED an already existent treaty? The double standards on this boards never ceases to amazes me. Thanks for the clarification. [/quote] Okay, my mistake but I'll hold you to that GOD-GOONS-MK-TOP and NPO-Invicta-SOS. The chain here is shorter and as a result NPO were more directly tied to SOS. GOD cancelled GOONS because a) they didn't want an indirect tie to TOP b) xiph seemed to expect Sardonic to do something to stop the MK-TOP treaty happening. He was interfering in the FA affairs of others, whereas in this scenario NPO are not. Oh also I wasn't the President of Umb back then and while I thought the cancellation was dumb if I remember correctly I never publicly criticized Xiph for it. No double standards to be found here I'm afraid. Edited September 1, 2011 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1314903125' post='2792364'] Or you could have, hold on get this, not make the least logical assumptions anybody could make here, talk to some people to get the facts and [b]then[/b] make well-formed opinions. I think that would have avoided all this argumentation. I believe the reason we didn't explicitly post the reasons was because we didn't want to end up fighting each other on the OWF like Polar and cancelled friends have been doing. But since now basically everyone and their mothers know, there's really no point in trying to keep this private. [/quote] Please tell me what was the illogical assumptions that I made? Also even being on mIRC almost of times I'm not the person who normally open queries to ask things, I defend the use of OWF as the main communication channel. Now people want to keep everything on private then come cry in this boards about how things are boring and how nothing happens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314897301' post='2792309'] 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] Well... While I appreciate the sentiment from a very curious source (your alliance has done more damage to us than anyone else we've ever defended), we did actually downgrade on NPO. Pre-Karma we held two chaining MDOAPs with NPO, post-Karma we downgraded to a non-chaining MDOAP. I'm the guy who wrote the non-chaining treaty and I know exactly why we downgraded then. [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1314900474' post='2792334'] D34th who is free try to negotiate a MDoAP on behalf of Invicta with NpO if he loves them that much [/quote] lolno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saniiro Matsudaira Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's nice to see that a downgrade does not ruin a relationship between two alliances. Despite my opinions, good show to both NPO and Invicta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 I can think of many relationships ending much less amiably than this. I again congratulate both parties on surviving a downgrade of this nature. I know how difficult that can be, especially when you add all of the emotions that are evidenced in Pacifican and Invicta members alike. I'm fairly certain that no one will be messing with Invicta and naturally assuming this tie is dead. That would/could be a grave mistake. Again, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of crap that I see here sometimes. 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.