thedon125 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 I did not resign, for I have not been in BFF government for a number of months. Thank you for reminding me to fix my sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357877058' post='3074490'] Yes. It's completely illogical... unless this was consciously done by BFF to save face. And I have a suspicion that is the case. [/quote] You are suspecting, rather than truth finding. Go ask those who were doing the negotiating who proposed such a thing, and ask them if they felt that BFF had no reason to feel that attacks were potentially imminent unless they found a deal, and found it fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1357876920' post='3074488'] If I am not mistaken, things like limited non-nuking were things proposed to BFF under duress. Can you fault them for not rejecting them outright when facing pressure from all sides to work out a deal, any deal, and fast? [/quote] Under duress? Are you kidding me? They offered it to us. They weren't the party that could do the rejecting. It was deceptive when TOP did it during Karma (when I was in TOP) and it's deceptive now. Plain and simple. Under duress or not, very few alliances would even suggest such honorless idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357877337' post='3074500'] Under duress? Are you kidding me? They offered it to us. They weren't the party that could do the rejecting. It was deceptive when TOP did it during Karma (when I was in TOP) and it's deceptive now. Plain and simple. Under duress or not, very few alliances would even suggest such honorless idea. [/quote] If you are so incensed that they would have the audacity to offer such a thing....you could have always said no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1357877193' post='3074493'] You do realize it was NPO who offered the no nuke term, right? Stop the tough guy act, especially considering NG also didn't want this war to escalate when they could have made it happen. [/quote] Not NPO, but others who were in the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357877337' post='3074500'] Under duress? Are you kidding me? They offered it to us. They weren't the party that could do the rejecting. It was deceptive when TOP did it during Karma (when I was in TOP) and it's deceptive now. Plain and simple. Under duress or not, very few alliances would even suggest such honorless idea. [/quote] They did not offer it to you, it was offered to them. Stop confusing the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1357877193' post='3074493'] You do realize it was NPO who offered the no nuke term, right? Stop the tough guy act, especially considering NG also didn't want this war to escalate when they could have made it happen. [/quote] You are totally wrong. All BFF bro. Neither NG or NPO offered the deal. BFF offered us the deal. LOL at us offering anyone a non-nuke deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357877532' post='3074506'] You are totally wrong. All BFF bro. Neither NG or NPO offered the deal. BFF offered us the deal. LOL at us offering anyone a non-nuke deal. [/quote] Hate to break it to you bro...but I do believe it was an NPO idea. At the very least it was brought together by a collection of allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) double edit to make this post useful: I apologize for mispeaking earlier, it was not NPO who proposed no nukes but neither was it BFF. Edited January 11, 2013 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1357877532' post='3074506'] You are totally wrong. All BFF bro. Neither NG or NPO offered the deal. BFF offered us the deal. LOL at us offering anyone a non-nuke deal. [/quote] I am not, I have seen the logs of a buffer party proposing that situation to BFF as a way to get negotiations moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1357877611' post='3074511'] I am not, I have seen the logs of a buffer party proposing that situation to BFF as a way to get negotiations moving. [/quote] Uh, it doesn't make that much of a difference whether you propose it or not if you are in agreement with it. It makes no sense to entertain such an idea. Agreeing to a short amount of time of war, non-nuclear, knowing that your buddies will aidbomb you is hardly "honouring" your treaty in my eyes. It serves no purpose in actually helping NEW. If they weren't prepared to commit why !@#$@#$ bother? Just cite your reasons for cancelling, man up and do it. But no you have to attempt to save face and in effect pretend to honour a treaty to fight in a fixed war... But I feel like we are going around in circles here. As someone else said, let's just agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 ahhh OWF meaningless drama. Where a bunch of people who dont know anything about BFF attempt to pass judgement on BFFs honor or lack thereof ::eye roll::. BFF has been pretty up front about what they are doing and why, and in my book you cant ask for more than that. But then, i'm biased. Since I know BFF and know them to be the best of alliances. And frankly would rather have them at my back then most of the people ranting at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1357878283' post='3074523'] ahhh OWF meaningless drama. Where a bunch of people who dont know anything about BFF attempt to pass judgement on BFFs honor or lack thereof ::eye roll::. [/quote] Are you saying thedon125 know anything about BFF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1357878283' post='3074523'] ahhh OWF meaningless drama. Where a bunch of people who dont know anything about BFF attempt to pass judgement on BFFs honor or lack thereof ::eye roll::. BFF has been pretty up front about what they are doing and why, and in my book you cant ask for more than that. But then, i'm biased. Since I know BFF and know them to be the best of alliances. And frankly would rather have them at my back then most of the people ranting at them. [/quote] Or they know and try to pass judgment on the OWF for points, even if their suggestions for how BFF should have acted would have been the opposite of good for their own alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) my comment wasnt directed towards thedon. There's rarely a controversial situation where some member of an alliance isnt going to be pissed off and upset. Ive seen angry members try to call out their alliance from nearly every alliance in this game. My comment *was* directed to the people who probably have never even spoken to anyone in BFF, but who seem pretty quick to play arm-chair expert (and often seem to have said alternate motives). Edited January 11, 2013 by OsRavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357877975' post='3074519'] Uh, it doesn't make that much of a difference whether you propose it or not if you are in agreement with it. It makes no sense to entertain such an idea. Agreeing to a short amount of time of war, non-nuclear, knowing that your buddies will aidbomb you is hardly "honouring" your treaty in my eyes. It serves no purpose in actually helping NEW. If they weren't prepared to commit why !@#$@#$ bother? Just cite your reasons for cancelling, man up and do it. But no you have to attempt to save face and in effect pretend to honour a treaty to fight in a fixed war... But I feel like we are going around in circles here. As someone else said, let's just agree to disagree. [/quote] Many people in this thread (and yourself to an extent) are calling out BFF for proposing 'selling out' their ally. When the reality, is that this 'agreement' was not proposed by BFF, and the fact that it was considered is based on the knowledge that alliances were threatening to strike at NEW that night, treaty with BFF or no, if no deal to limit the conflict was struck. Your own alliance has been in the middle of some pretty crappy stuff before. I'm sure your allies lost some sleep over the stuff that UPN was getting them in to, and there were times that UPN's actions made their allies suffer. You should sit back and realize that BFF was trying to handle this to the best of their abilities to not only make sure their many allies who had nothing to do with NEW or Kaskus did not have to shed blood for them, but that their terrible ally in NEW also had some heat spared off of it. The proposal you cite was but one of many discussed yesterday, instead of continuing to barrage them over it, try to come to terms with how they are learning a lesson that every alliance must learn, including those who have been linked to you, that there is no easy way to get out of a rock and a hard place, and that you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't in many things in CN. Edit: English. Edited January 11, 2013 by goldielax25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedon125 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1357878458' post='3074527'] Are you saying thedon125 know anything about BFF? [/quote] If he did suggest that, he would be correct. I know nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 Hold on, the old guy is lost. Let me calibrate myself: [b]BFF PLAN A:[/b] NEW attacks NPO NPO and NSO attack NEW BFF attacks NSO and NPO, but only or a week, and no nukes After the week is up, ODN and INT aid BFF up to full strength NG, MK, NSO, NPO dogpile on NEW Everyone involved is aware of this plan but NEW [b]BFF PLAN B:[/b] We're going to dump NEW for their transgressions We will honor both the MD and the AP parts of our treaty if they are activated within a week THIS was what I read in the OP. My question is -- and I'd like it answered by a BFF member, please. Was Plan A discussed and rejected, or are Plan A and Plan B the same, it's just worded without the icky parts in the OP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Walshington' timestamp='1357878889' post='3074535'] Hold on, the old guy is lost. Let me calibrate myself: [b]BFF PLAN A:[/b] NEW attacks NPO NPO and NSO attack NEW BFF attacks NSO and NPO, but only or a week, and no nukes After the week is up, ODN and INT aid BFF up to full strength NG, MK, NSO, NPO dogpile on NEW Everyone involved is aware of this plan but NEW [b]BFF PLAN B:[/b] We're going to dump NEW for their transgressions We will honor both the MD and the AP parts of our treaty if they are activated within a week THIS was what I read in the OP. My question is -- and I'd like it answered by a BFF member, please. Was Plan A discussed and rejected, or are Plan A and Plan B the same, it's just worded without the icky parts in the OP? [/quote] I don't know where you came up with the 2nd part of Plan A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='thedon125' timestamp='1357878734' post='3074534'] If he did suggest that, he would be correct. I know nothing. [/quote] Are your pseudonym Jon Snow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedon125 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Walshington' timestamp='1357878889' post='3074535'] Hold on, the old guy is lost. Let me calibrate myself: [b]BFF PLAN A:[/b] NEW attacks NPO NPO and NSO attack NEW BFF attacks NSO and NPO, but only or a week, and no nukes After the week is up, ODN and INT aid BFF up to full strength NG, MK, NSO, NPO dogpile on NEW Everyone involved is aware of this plan but NEW [b]BFF PLAN B:[/b] We're going to dump NEW for their transgressions We will honor both the MD and the AP parts of our treaty if they are activated within a week THIS was what I read in the OP. My question is -- and I'd like it answered by a BFF member, please. Was Plan A discussed and rejected, or are Plan A and Plan B the same, it's just worded without the icky parts in the OP? [/quote] They are the same. There are posts by Chax and myself in this thread confirming that, though the second part of "plan A" is likely slightly innacurate. Edited January 11, 2013 by thedon125 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1357878709' post='3074533'] Many people in this thread (and yourself to an extent) are calling out BFF for proposing 'selling out' their ally. When the reality, is that this 'agreement' was not proposed by BFF, and the fact that it was considered is based on the knowledge that alliances were threatening to strike at NEW that night, treaty with BFF or no, if a deal to not limit the conflict was struck. Your own alliance has been in the middle of some pretty crappy stuff before. I'm sure your allies lost some sleep over the stuff that UPN was getting them in to, and there were times that UPN's actions made their allies suffer. You should sit back and realize that BFF was trying to handle this to the best of their abilities to not only make sure their many allies who had nothing to do with NEW or Kaskus did not have to shed blood for them, but that their terrible ally in NEW also had some heat spared off of it. The proposal you cite was but one of many discussed yesterday, instead of continuing to barrage them over it, try to come to terms with how they are learning a lesson that every alliance must learn, including those who have been linked to you, that there is no easy way to get out of a rock and a hard place, and that you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't in many things in CN. [/quote] I don't see how it matters who came up with the idea. If they accepted it, they may as well as came up with it. It's trivial... As for UPN, I have personally $%&@ed up on numerous occasions but I made sure that our allies wouldn't suffer if that was the case. As seen in the past, when we refused to call in allies. Whatever your opinion of us, I don't think you can question our loyalty and commitment. In addition I would be furious if any of our treaty partners decided to "back us" by arranging a termed war -- it would be of no practical utility for us, and I would rather not be misled. It's pretty low and I would rather they outright cancelled. ... on an ending note, I would just like to say that I still don't see why the façade was necessary, as people made it clear they consider the treaty null and void. Why go through it at all then? A termed war is just a cop out. But as you say, perhaps they will learn from their mistakes. Anyway, best of luck to all involved. Edited January 11, 2013 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357879346' post='3074544'] I don't see how it matters who came up with the idea. If they accepted it, they may as well as came up with it. It's trivial... [/quote] Nope. You're an idiot. Why is anybody wasting their time on this guy? Seriously. Decorum be damned tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='Emperor Marx' timestamp='1357879452' post='3074546'] Nope. You're an idiot. Why is anybody wasting their time on this guy? Seriously. Decorum be damned tonight. [/quote] Right... because how the idea originated actually matters. In the end BFF seemed happy to roll with it, implying they had no issues against it. Why do the semantics concern you so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted January 11, 2013 Report Share Posted January 11, 2013 [quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1357879037' post='3074537'] I don't know where you came up with the 2nd part of Plan A. [/quote] [b]Well, that's what it looks like in these diagrams:[/b] [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1357874366' post='3074424'] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Lcl2Yh.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/GCgyEh.png[/img] [/quote] [b]Do these diagrams reflect the intent of the OP? Please don't answer if you're not BFF.[/b] 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.