Sal Paradise Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Ventus' timestamp='1316566138' post='2804921'] You've got to be joking! Not keeping with the CnG heritage? Did you not read the discussions on the TLR forums or CnG forums? We've been over this many times and even those that are against this treaty can't argue that it does in fact stick with our heritage. CnG is a suicide pact that was originally meant to destroy NPO. It accomplished that. However that is only a shell of what CnG believes. CnG believes in second chances, it was CnG that allowed ODN to be transformed ODN from the "Optional Defense Network" into one of the most trustworthy alliances on Bob![/quote] You seemed to miss exactly what I was saying is not in keeping with CnG's heritage. It's not giving alliances second chances. It's being a moron and party-line parrot. In opposition we attracted the most intelligent posters chiefly because the Hegemony position was logically indefensible. As the Hegemony became more solidified one noticed its intelligent leadership posting less and less. Only the idiot rank and file would dare try to speak for it. All defence of this treaty consists of tripe and platitudes. Anyone actually attempting to go beyond this has revealed the stupidity of their position. [quote]If anything it's cowards like you that ruin CnG. You refuse to change the world like CnG was made to do.[/quote] Oh sure, hail you ODP and declare you're changing the world. [quote] You refuse to give alliances second chances in tradition with CnG. You bail on your alliance at the first disagreement with it, your argument was "No pixels will be lost defending NPO." even though it is an optional treaty meaning you probably will not be defending Pacifica.[/quote] Uh-huh, so TLR won't be defending NPO? Did you tell the NPO about this? !@#$, Ventus, don't change the world too fast. I don't think the world can handle it. Edited September 21, 2011 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1316578518' post='2805095'] Man, you really need to start proofreading your posts or something. Just in the last few pages I've seen multiple posts that are easily misinterpreted. Unless you meant to say that anyone who leaves their alliance is a coward. [/quote] You're a coward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick87 Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Ventus' timestamp='1316566911' post='2804938'] Indeed it was. Poorly worded but most should understand I meant that in a good way I hope! [/quote] I made you [url="http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z405/xMaverick87x/tlrnpo.jpg"]something[/url]. o/ NPO o/ TLR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1316561435' post='2804829'] There are nations on Bob that are nearly 1000 days old who never witnessed NPO being anything less than a pariah and a punching bag. [/quote] This makes me somewhat sad and somewhat happy. I think it'd be fun to sit some of the new people down on our collective knees and tell them campfire stories about Pacifica and how they ruled the world with an iron fist for what seemed like forever. Although I can't even concede that your point is valid, the NPO's arrogance has never gone away. They've kept with them that air of formal superiority that makes people either love/hate them. Personally, I love to hate them, everyone needs a bad guy, whether it's MK, TLR, NPO or whatever. I'm glad to have found mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1316582737' post='2805153'] Uh-huh, so TLR won't be defending NPO? Did you tell the NPO about this? !@#$, Ventus, don't change the world too fast. I don't think the world can handle it. [/quote] We will defend NPO and if no one believes us, they can always attack NPO to see if we would defend them. We take our treaty obligations very seriously and all that jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1316563834' post='2804882'] There are IO's that leave (just as there are members that leave) when they don't agree anymore. Then there are those that decide to stay and ride it out, fighting and making changes when they can with the belief in the end they can change the alliance for the better. Those of us still around believe we can work together and make the changes. We have always believed it and we continue to fight for it. If you just leave... then you are the coward without any need for further discussion. Edit for clarification: You = proverbial you, not Sal directly. [/quote] The rhetoric of martyrs is beneath you Brehon, you are the Regent of NPO. Members, and IO's alike retire and depart (at times over internal dispute). There is nothing cowardly in that as it is the only way in which one can really express disagreement with an alliance that is authoritarian in structure. You have chosen to stay and have endeavored to continue the work of the alliance. While there is a great deal worthy of respect in that, not everyone has the time, energy or interest to dedicate to such a project and that neither means they were driven by fear in their departure nor does it indicate they posses inferior character. In either case, this is a brilliant accomplishment, so well deserved congratulations. Edited September 21, 2011 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1316582992' post='2805156'] You're a coward. [/quote] B-but it was only once! :saddowns: Edited September 21, 2011 by WorldConqueror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1316585733' post='2805178'] We will defend NPO and if no one believes us, they can always attack NPO to see if we would defend them. We take our treaty obligations very seriously and all that jazz. [/quote] Is that why the defence clause is optional? You don't need a treaty clause to prove your loyalty. See our optional defence pact and behold our commitment! How romantic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1316585733' post='2805178'] We will defend NPO and if no one believes us, they can always attack NPO to see if we would defend them. We take our treaty obligations very seriously and all that jazz. [/quote] [quote]Should a signatory of this treaty come under attack by hostile forces, the other signatory is highly encouraged, [b]but not obligated[/b] to come to the defense of the attacked signatory. [/quote] You can take your treaty obligations very seriously, but since this treaty doesn't oblige you to defend NPO that means nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnathan buck Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) What the.................................................................................is this? I saw this and was shocked....i still dislike NPO i am open about it, i have friends in NPO but i still dislike the alliance and what it stands for...partly why i'm not in an actual alliance. But anyways good luck to both of you just hope y'all actually live up to a [size="7"][b]OPTIONAL [/b][/size]DEFENSE PACT since it seems some people don't know the meaning of it. Edit: This is my opinion and not the people on the AA that i sit on's opinion. Edited September 21, 2011 by johnathan buck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='johnathan buck' timestamp='1316587455' post='2805189'] But anyways good luck to both of you just hope y'all actually live up to a [size="7"][b]OPTIONAL [/b][/size]DEFENSE PACT since it seems some people don't know the meaning of it. [/quote] What. How do you not fulfill the terms of a optional pact? It literally allows for both eventualities, that of acting in common defense, and of not doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1316585894' post='2805179'] The rhetoric of martyrs is beneath you Brehon, you are the Regent of NPO. Members, and IO's alike retire, sometimes they choose to retire to other places, sample other alliances. There is nothing cowardly in that. You have chosen to stay and have endeavored to continue the work of the alliance, there is a great deal worthy of respect in that, but not everyone has the time, energy or interest to dedicate to such a project and that neither means they were driven by fear in their departure nor does it indicate they posses inferior character. In either case, this is a brilliant accomplishment, so well deserved congratulations. [/quote] I guess you see no value in firefighters saving burning buildings, pilots trying to prevent the crash of airplanes, or captains willing to try to right the ship instead of abandon it.... The First Responders of my humble nation salute you. My sarcasm is superficial and to illustrate how petty this tangent of discussion is. Now for something more truthful and pointed... The motives of some are simpler and not cowardice, but that does not say the same for all and each case is individual to the person. The problem here is, no one is naming names and broad sweeping statements cannot aptly apply to every individual. Some deserve to be called cowards; others not so much, and I think both you and Brehon both realize that. Your stances are practically the same side to a singular argument in juxtaposition in which either side could be correct depending on the person whose character is being observed. Juxtaposition.. wow.. I've not been able to use that word in forever. Edited September 21, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnathan buck Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1316588001' post='2805190'] What. How do you not fulfill the terms of a optional pact? It literally allows for both eventualities, that of acting in common defense, and of not doing so. [/quote] Read this quote that's why i said that, i know that both sides of it are like that. You can choose not to defend or to defend this quote is what got me to post that part. [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1316585733' post='2805178'] We will defend NPO and if no one believes us, they can always attack NPO to see if we would defend them. We take our treaty obligations very seriously and all that jazz. [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1316563834' post='2804882'] Those of us still around believe we can work together and make the changes. We have always believed it and we continue to fight for it. If you just leave... then you are the coward [b]without any need for further discussion.[/b] [/quote] If only it were so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods45 Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1316587134' post='2805185'] Is that why the defence clause is optional? You don't need a treaty clause to prove your loyalty. See our optional defence pact and behold our commitment! How romantic [/quote] [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1316587247' post='2805186'] You can take your treaty obligations very seriously, but since this treaty doesn't oblige you to defend NPO that means nothing. [/quote] [quote name='johnathan buck' timestamp='1316587455' post='2805189'] What the.................................................................................is this? I saw this and was shocked....i still dislike NPO i am open about it, i have friends in NPO but i still dislike the alliance and what it stands for...partly why i'm not in an actual alliance. But anyways good luck to both of you just hope y'all actually live up to a [size="7"][b]OPTIONAL [/b][/size]DEFENSE PACT since it seems some people don't know the meaning of it. Edit: This is my opinion and not the people on the AA that i sit on's opinion. [/quote] I would of loved a mandatory defense clause with NPO. LOVED IT. But it's just not possible at this point in time but that doesn't mean that I won't be working hard to make that O into a M in the near future. It's pretty amusing to see members of Polar commenting on an Optional Defense treaty seeing as they have one with FARK. Should the New Pacific Order come under attack by hostile forces through no fault of their own, they will be defended. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shan Revan Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1316588066' post='2805191'] I guess you see no value in firefighters saving burning buildings, pilots trying to prevent the crash of airplanes, or captains willing to try to right the ship instead of abandon it.... The First Responders of my humble nation salute you. My sarcasm is superficial and to illustrate how petty this tangent of discussion is. Now for something more truthful and pointed... The motives of some are simpler and not cowardice, but that does not say the same for all and each case is individual to the person. The problem here is, no one is naming names and broad sweeping statements cannot aptly apply to every individual. Some deserve to be called cowards; others not so much, and I think both you and Brehon both realize that. Your stances are practically the same side to a singular argument in juxtaposition in which either side could be correct depending on the person whose character is being observed. Juxtaposition.. wow.. I've not been able to use that word in forever. [/quote] That's a terrible comparison. Each of those are life and death situations for people and people are free to leave those occupations just as much as anyone else. Some high level gov members leaving, even in a crisis, does not typically result in the deaths of other people. (OOC - especially seeing as nation's can not even die in the first place, and gov come and go through alliances quite readily. No one is actually harmed through their loss. Sure the alliance may wither, but an alliance can be replaced - a life can not.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1316592403' post='2805202'] I would of loved a mandatory defense clause with NPO. LOVED IT. But it's just not possible at this point in time but that doesn't mean that I won't be working hard to make that O into a M in the near future. It's pretty amusing to see members of Polar commenting on an Optional Defense treaty seeing as they have one with FARK. Should the New Pacific Order come under attack by hostile forces through no fault of their own, they will be defended. Plain and simple. [/quote] I don't even know why you respond to the mindless rabble that is the OWF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1316588066' post='2805191'] I guess you see no value in firefighters saving burning buildings, pilots trying to prevent the crash of airplanes, or captains willing to try to right the ship instead of abandon it.... The First Responders of my humble nation salute you. My sarcasm is superficial and to illustrate how petty this tangent of discussion is. Now for something more truthful and pointed... The motives of some are simpler and not cowardice, but that does not say the same for all and each case is individual to the person. The problem here is, no one is naming names and broad sweeping statements cannot aptly apply to every individual. Some deserve to be called cowards; others not so much, and I think both you and Brehon both realize that. Your stances are practically the same side to a singular argument in juxtaposition in which either side could be correct depending on the person whose character is being observed. Juxtaposition.. wow.. I've not been able to use that word in forever. [/quote] Your desire to defend brehon, is also admirable mael, but unnecessary as that was hardly an afront to him. Brehon is an adult, and if disagreement with one of his attempts to divine the psychology and character of every person to have ever left NPO is capable of penetrating his armor then I don't think he would still be doing the work he does. That being said, even if your comparison between firefighters and cybernations alliance leaders was even remotely appropriate (in truth if I was a first responder I would probably be insulted) the fact remains that not everyone is cut out to be one, and not everyone who is one remains so until death, and that hardly means the entire present non-firefighting population is composed of cowards. That is why a firefighting force exists after all, because most people don't want to run into a burning house, or use their garden hose to extinguish a fire. In either case fire fighters are deserving of respect for their services, and I made clear that the persistent efforts of NPO's IO corps are similarly deserving of respect. What I find aggravating though, is the compulsion that some feel to get out on their cross don an air of self righteous indignation and take pot shots at others for a choice and decision that was largely self imposed. This sort of behavior I find amateurish and beneath the station of any serious leader. Despite this however, such details should not be allowed to obstruct what is a moment of long awaited celebration- so once again congratulations. Edited September 21, 2011 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melancholy Culkin Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 To be fair, my biggest issue with this treaty is NPO's other allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcades057 Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 My oh my, you people will turn any thread into an NPO thread, won't you. /me reads the OP... OK, you win this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 Every alliance deserves a second chance. I welcome a world where we don't have to dogmatically be aligned against NPO. I am confident they will not squander our trust in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KahlanRahl Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='Melancholy Culkin' timestamp='1316615753' post='2805281'] To be fair, my biggest issue with this treaty is NPO's other allies. [/quote] Please, elaborate and share with the rest of the class. I implore you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1316587247' post='2805186'] You can take your treaty obligations very seriously, but since this treaty doesn't oblige you to defend NPO that means nothing. [/quote] There are alliances that are obliged by the wording of their treaties that don't do it at all. Why people take so much stock in what a piece of paper says versus what the friendship between the two alliances will lead to is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) EDIT: An unfortunate case of the double-postings. Sorry. Edited September 21, 2011 by Stormsend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted September 21, 2011 Report Share Posted September 21, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1316587247' post='2805186'] You can take your treaty obligations very seriously, but since this treaty doesn't oblige you to defend NPO that means nothing. [/quote] All part of a ruse to lure the NPO into a false sense of security, no doubt! DON'T TRUST THEM PACIFICA! MK IS RIGHT BEHIND YOU WITH THE KNIFE! 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.