Blue Lightning Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 NPO will show us why TORN don't need warchests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 We've proven we can fight the 'mighty' TOP war machine for over a month now. You've outnumbered us from the very beginning and after a month you need additional help. Don't flatter yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 NPO will show us why TORN don't need warchests. Or a spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 We're not afraid of who is in peace talks. You are.Wanting to make sure there was someone there to represent Ai considering you DoW'd on them... OMG how dare I. I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there... OMG how dare I.Keep buying into your propaganda /boggle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 You're incapable of conducting foreign affairs on your own. It's the classic definition of a client state. "A client state is a state that is economically, politically or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_state Ah, so you're a client state of MK is what you're saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Wanting to make sure there was someone there to represent Ai considering you DoW'd on them... OMG how dare I. I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there... OMG how dare I. Keep buying into your propaganda /boggle. If you wanted a coalition leader involved why did you DoW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Wanting to make sure there was someone there to represent Ai considering you DoW'd on them... OMG how dare I. I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there... OMG how dare I. Keep buying into your propaganda /boggle. What prevented you from that? As far as I know, your allies didn't bother calling you or AI. We never objected to anything. Why they didn't is probably something you should figure out among yourselves. Edited March 4, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 And you just happened to ask for this "pressure relief" right after peace talks that YOUR SIDE initiated collapsed. Yeah right. :rolleyes: Says the guy offering peace to his enemies. Spend too much of your warchest on infra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Says the guy offering peace to his enemies. Spend too much of your warchest on infra? Now, now, Otter. Don't lie in public, it's not nice. Some of your coalition members sought us for a peace deal first. We agreed to talks. Not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Why are you so afraid of who is in peace talks? Torpedoed peace talks? Good lord what is wrong with you people. You should not confuse surprise and amusement for fear. For the duration of this conflict, the DR/NPO has been the relatively well-run side of the coalition. So when you approach us with explicit concerns about the absence of AI from discussions initiated by [i]your allies[/i] and use that as a partial, if not complete, reason to insert yourself into the front, it leaves us shocked and very entertained. It demonstrates a lack of confidence in those alliances on the front against us, either militarily or diplomatically or both. It is a return to the sort of controlling arrogance of days since past, when the greatest advocate for opposition to Pacifica was Pacifica herself. That is a terribly silly thing to do in a war where your coalition is already less than cohesive. Your allies were doing a fine job of handling their affairs. They offered a resolution very favorable to themselves. TOP replied with one we think is more fair to our interests. It was declined. As I'm sure you are aware, that is generally how negotiations work, running through the offer-counteroffer cycle until mutual assent of the parties is reached. At what point in the process were you disadvantaged? Unlike you, I feel very comfortable making assumptions based on the loyalty and competence of my allies. If I were not, they simply would not be my allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Wanting to make sure there was someone there to represent Ai considering you DoW'd on them... OMG how dare I. I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there... OMG how dare I. Keep buying into your propaganda /boggle. AI was invited to talks, as was everyone we are fighting with. And thank you for the admission that this is about peace negotiations, not war slots. Says the guy offering peace to his enemies. Spend too much of your warchest on infra? Please, do show us where we were the first ones to offer peace in this scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there You don't trust your coalition mates? Afterall, the ones who approached us are the ones doing the actual heavy lifting. One would think they had a say in matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 NPO will show us why TORN don't need warchests. If you're implying TORN lacks warchests, you're in for a big surprise. You've outnumbered us from the very beginning and after a month you need additional help. Don't flatter yourself. There's a difference between desperately needing additional help and having the resources to cover TOP more thoroughly. I'm sure you know this, though. If we have the means to spread the damage for efficiently, then we will do so. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AuOBgJ-MOr7rdEtOdFNadGp6bHI1bHR3NGR4amR3YWc&single=true&gid=0&output=html Or a spine. Alliance Name:The Order of the Paradox Back on topic, thanks for this Pacifica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) You are objecting to it here Yev (you being TOP) with all the drivel about me having to be on the talks. I am replying stating I want Ai there. TOP launched an attack its about me, an ego or whatever else you have come up with and I have given my response. But this is what TOP does at this point. They try to make a point into an issue, then when they are countered or answered, they attempt to switch it around as if the situation is different. (thank you Bob for providing another direct and perfect example of what I just explained /bravo sir)Peace talks where had. Ai was not represented. I gave Voodoo a courtesy as the alliance leader the Coalition leadership had to be represented/Ai had to be represented. That is the long and short of that part. To make it into something more is simply political propaganda.Now NPO was approached to cover war slots. NPO agreed. Due to complaints, my distrust of TOP and a desire to cull the complaining of no DoW, I issued a DOW. Out of courtesy again to Voodoo, I gave him a heads up because I was pretty sure one of my guys would jump (seems I was late there). DoW is posted.Twist and contort which is the common act of this war, but those are the events that happened. Edited March 4, 2013 by Brehon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I've been asked to bring a particular confrontational style to this thread in such a way as to incite frustrated responses in those opposite my side. I hope yall appreciate the effort I just made here TOP, do not force me to bring the big guns out!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 (edited) Yeah. And what we're saying is that the reason why AI wasn't there isn't us. We asked our opponents to contact everybody on their side of the fence to make sure all alliances had at least one spokeperson in the talks. We were told "two or three AAs couldn't make it". If AI was never contacted, the blame lays entirely at the feet of your allies. As AI wasn't actively involved in the war and we were offering something fair, we esteemed that they either trusted their allies enough or that the information would be relayed to them. Instead, we were met with a rebuttal and joke counter-offers. You wanted in those talks? Again, should have told us or, better yet, asked your allies. Since, y'know, this was a counter-offer to the initial approach that was made by some of your allies. Edit: We will see your alliance burn for that incredibly arrogant response, Auctor. Salt, earth, etc. Edited March 4, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namayan Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 So, let me get this straight. Ted went to these peace talks and acted like TORN were destroying us and would put its jackboot on our neck. He threw "joke" counter-offers, meant to be offensive, further torpedoing any negotiations. And then... He asked Pacifica for help? Golden. Just a simple question for TOP. Shouldn't GLOF and DT be the ones who TOP should be dealing for peace since it was they who dealt more damage to TOP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TailsK Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I am replying stating I want Ai there. So why not just allow Ai to be there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I trust those fighting TOP, I don't trust TOP. Very very important clarification there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Just a simple question for TOP. Shouldn't GLOF and DT be the ones who TOP should be dealing for peace since it was they who dealt more damage to TOP? The good folks at GLOF and DT seem to want to give incompetence a role in the talks. They are a charitable bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 You are objecting to it here Yev (you being TOP) with all the drivel about me having to be on the talks. I am replying stating I want Ai there. TOP launched an attack its about me, an ego or whatever else you have come up with and I have given my response. But this is what TOP does at this point. They try to make a point into an issue, then when they are countered or answered, they attempt to switch it around as if the situation is different. (thank you Bob for providing another direct and perfect example of what I just explained /bravo sir) Peace talks where had. Ai was not represented. I gave Voodoo a courtesy as the alliance leader the Coalition leadership had to be represented/Ai had to be represented. That is the long and short of that part. To make it into something more is simply political propaganda. Now NPO was approached to cover war slots. NPO agreed. Due to complaints, my distrust of TOP and a desire to cull the complaining of no DoW, I issued a DOW. Out of courtesy again to Voodoo, I gave him a heads up because I was pretty sure one of my guys would jump (seems I was late there). DoW is posted. Twist and contort which is the common act of this war, but those are the events that happened. I am confident your allies would not have abandoned AI and that the proceedings would have been communicated to them in a timely manner, as they must have been given that we are now all here talking about them. Evidently you are not so confident. That is very strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 I trust those fighting TOP, I don't trust TOP. Very very important clarification there. The implication being we are smart enough to do some sneak move that would go undetected by your allies but not by you. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted March 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 First of all, I don't "allow" anyone anything. That isn't my place or authority. Secondly I have ZERO issue with Ai there. My point remains they should have been there and I fully believe if they aren't you lot will try to pull some bs move. I wasn't disappointed there at all.My coalition mates have done a great job on that front, period. Attempts to sow discontent there is a sign of absolute weakness. But again that is exactly why I don't trust TOP at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Just a simple question for TOP. Shouldn't GLOF and DT be the ones who TOP should be dealing for peace since it was they who dealt more damage to TOP? Yes, you'd think so but apparently TORN believes it's the king of the castle. But we'll let them be delusional, it's all they have left at this point anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TailsK Posted March 4, 2013 Report Share Posted March 4, 2013 Thanks for that spreadsheet btw guys - I forgot to record all my pre-war stats! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts