Mandellav Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330837298' post='2932954'] Yes, that's why an apology was demanded for a while. Everyone made a big deal of it being a preemptive attack because it'd get more people on the front, essentially. Otherwise, it's just an ODP partner being hit. If I have to get quotes, you'll have to wait a few weeks or I can scan through threads alternatively. [/quote] Losers should apologize (and/or admit defeat) for tactical blunders and I'll await those quotes with bated breath. You don't get to preemptively attack, lose, and get away as if nothing happened. There has to be some kind of penalty for losing. And those harsh reparations FARK had to pay for what they did. The pain and horror that was for them. Edited March 4, 2012 by Mandellav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mandellav' timestamp='1330837609' post='2932960'] Losers should apologizes for tactical blunders and I'll await those quotes with bated breath. You don't get to preemptively attack, lose, and get away as if nothing happened. There has to be some kind of penalty for losing. And those harsh reparations FARK had to pay for what they did. The pain and horror that was for them. [/quote] I didn't say they had to pay any. I said that DH, TLR, and others thought NPO was being too soft. "I apologize because you won the war." lol Also I don't really care if it's a broken record or anything. The entirety of the DH milieu in essence endorses conduct like that of Archon and MK at large, so they deserve take all the crap I can dish out. Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 For the record, and I have certainly said it previously here and on air; I don't have an issue with the FARK attack, they did what they felt they needed to based on the DOS. No problem. As for things demanded in talks, there was no reps, had to start somewhere. /shrugs People making this out to be more than it is. I know this is going to be unique to some people; but when you talk openly to your allies, things happen, comfort sets in and yet you never have to cover up any concerns you have... you just deal with them. I said a year ago, the NPO is talking to everyone and seeing first who would talk to us. Additionally we stated our moves in FA would be based on relations and and a natural progression. Why is this some ruckus now that something has transpired from it? This is about two alliances only, NPO and TLR. If that really bothers people... well hell thats up to you but instead of reading into it, how about you just read it for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Congrats on this, guys. I've been waiting for this for quite some time, really happy to see it pushed through. o/ NPO o/ TLR o/ Continuum and Grievances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1330837784' post='2932965'] This is about two alliances only, NPO and TLR. If that really bothers people... well hell thats up to you but instead of reading into it, how about you just read it for what it is. [/quote] Brehon: thanks for the civil post. The issue is, every treaty signed has implications. TLR is deeply tied into the DH/PB nexus. Just look at their treaty list. By signing with them, it is an entry of sorts, especially given their(MK) overtures towards you. I didn't really say NPO had a huge problem with it, though the apology thing was still there. I said TLR and MK made a big deal of it to accrue support. Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) You know whats cool... even if they did feel that way it was taking under consideration yet the final call was the NPO's and get this, everyone respected it. Know what I think about them thinking we should have done so...cool input, thank you. Story Ends. Roq - we are very aware of their treaties. While the details are kept between us, it is something we discussed. If someone had issues on either side we talked about it and know 100% where we all stand. That is how it is supposed to be. Edited March 4, 2012 by Brehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Yes, but I wasn't criticizing NPO on those grounds. I was citing TLR and others as hypocrites. They disliked VE's CB on Polar when they had used a worse one on TPF for instance. But, Brehon, if that's the case, why is it an MDoAP at all? It could have stayed at its previous level. A treaty you will be unlikely to honor and know it when signing it is a problematic concept in itself. Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ControlVolume Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330837298' post='2932954'] If I have to get quotes, you'll have to wait a few weeks or I can scan through threads alternatively. [/quote] So is this going to be the firebombing of Tokyo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 [color="#800080"]No, because it's not that important. It's more of an argument settling thing rather than an expose.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330838061' post='2932970'] they had used a worse one on TPF for instance. [/quote] The TPF CB was the cat's pajamas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1330837504' post='2932959'] Haha, and you didn't want them to demand reps? I remember you told me they were being too reasonable, so to me, that is making a big deal. [/quote] Want them to demand reps? No. I supported the idea of them demanding reps. I did feel they were being too reasonable, and they know I felt that way. Do you really think we did not discuss this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 That is far too blanket a statement Roq. NPO will defend TLR. We are not ignorant and our decisions are not made in a bubble nor a tunnel. Defending TLR is not equal to defending every ally they have. Circumstances and situations are dealt with appropriately based on the incident. If there is a chaining issue, that is what the non chaining is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1330838686' post='2932980'] Want them to demand reps? No. I supported the idea of them demanding reps. I did feel they were being too reasonable, and they know I felt that way. Do you really think we did not discuss this? [/quote] How could you suggest it or "support" it if you didn't talk to them? I thought my statement presupposed that. The point isn't really to show some sort of contrast between NPO and TLR in this instance, it's to show TLR making a big deal of the Fark thing. Brehon, in most cases, the alliances involved won't be attacked directly, as in the start of the war. Non-chaining usually means little unless it's a bloc-wide neutrality like DR in early 2011 or joining the side with the most treaties or winning. Edited March 4, 2012 by Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) [quote]Roquentin But, Brehon, if that's the case, why is it an MDoAP at all? It could have stayed at its previous level. A treaty you will be unlikely to honor and know it when signing it is a problematic concept in itself. [/quote] I think one should check their crystal ball to see if it has a crack in it. Edited March 4, 2012 by brucemania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 [quote name='brucemania' timestamp='1330838853' post='2932983'] I think one should check their crystal ball to see if it has a crack in it. [/quote] I said unlikely, not definitively. The other treaties TLR has dictate a certain course of action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I hear what you are saying, however chaining isn't the only way to war Roq, its only part of it. Of course such things are considered, but they are not the only piece, nor can they be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Alright TLR and NPO, that's enough out of you. [img]http://i.imgur.com/BHU5z.jpg[/img] Edited March 4, 2012 by rsoxbronco1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Meh I don't mind him saying his piece /shrugs. He hasn't been nasty and so forth so nothing wrong with a nice debate or discussion. BTW, while it didn't happen in this case, NPO gov could have made the same argument/discussion about reps no reps. Pushing it out further I will tell you our membership certainly had varying opinions. Nothing wrong with that and its perfectly natural. For this not to apply (varying opinions) to any/all allies or friends (TLR or other) is unnatural. Edited March 4, 2012 by Brehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandler Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Congrats to our friends and allies in TLR for this diplomatic milestone. May the relationship be long and mutually beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikita Ilyich Lenin Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Congrats to our allies in TLR and our friends in NPO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Brandon Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Congratulations you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 I am happy to see this completed. I look forward to this relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmer Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 Congrats to our allies in TLR and NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrin Xies Posted March 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 [quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1330839313' post='2932988'] Alright TLR and NPO, that's enough out of you. [img]http://i.imgur.com/BHU5z.jpg[/img] [/quote] Crap, and here I was about to let everyone know the same exact thing. Ignore TLR/NPO upgrade, acquire Roq soap box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted March 4, 2012 Report Share Posted March 4, 2012 This was an obvious move for NPO now and an even cleverer acquisition at the time for TLR. Good luck, you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts