Ying Yang Mafia Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Not impressed with these terms at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Twisted, As I have specified. PC, IS and TFO are not support the ways of Karma, you are acting more like the things you swore to defeat and end. You act as though you are one of us, when it comes down to it none of you are. You dump logs, you force small alliances to pay reps, and you are A#)hats about the entire thing. PC has lost a lot of My personal respect and so has IS and TFO. I still cant push this fact, You hold a grudge over someone demanding reps from PC while PC was small, Well how do you think TSI will feel when they are 4M NS and come face to face with PC again? Will they be so merciful like the rest of karma? Or will they squash you with reps. Remember, What goes around comes around. And you have just restarted the circle.Josshill This is probably one of the most ironic posts ever with your attitude towards reps you've shown over the past week or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 perhaps the fact that two pc protectorates are extorting an alliance who entered merely to honor their treaties... but hey, i dont think the phrase 'like father like son' was ever more appropriate, pc has always been a joke when it comes to having a sense of honor You really shouldn't speak about things you know nothing about, sonny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Cash Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think its best for TFO and IS if the war ends sooner and they got their reps while TSI was still capable. If it means calling our allies to seal the deal quicker, it means just that.fixed your post for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vasuda Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Does anybody want to explain to me why reps are required? Is it because TFO and Internet Superheroes took some damage? You two knew exactly what you were getting into when you joined this war. If your infrastructure is simply that precious to you then you would have been better off sitting out. TSI honored a treaty. These reparations are not necessary. All they are a sign of is that both of you two, both you alliances, are filled with and run by petty and opportunistic cowards. I recommend that any self-respecting alliance refrain from conducting business with these hooligans. I must echo the statements of the wise Rebel Virginia. This is a a sad moment where we realize that not everyone who is fighting alongside us is truly on our side. Shame on you, TFO and IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Cash Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 You really shouldn't speak about things you know nothing about, sonny.i think you assume too much greenacres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurukian Posted May 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I would also like to mention that I did take Twisted telling me about RAD as an act in good faith. We've been on very good terms the past few days, and I fully understand that they would want to protect their protectorates. It didn't sound like a threat to me, and I would have reacted much less friendly if he had. It was a factor in my decision, but I found it to be helpful information, rather than a threat. I do think that an alliance is obligated to defend their Protectorates, and it was used to get us out of the war, I do understand why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akama Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Anyone who thought that white peace would continue was either blind or delusional.The terms are, though, fairly easy. They're buying tech. Why the outrage at these terms, I don't know. These terms are very reasonable, my issue is that alliances who have done worse than TSI (NADC and NATO for instance) are getting off with white peace, while TSI is forced into terms. But that's Bob for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckz3 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think its best for TSI, TFO and IS if the war ends sooner. If it means calling our allies to end that front, it means just that. We didn't forcefully oppress terms - by then I don't believe terms were even really on the table other than an agreement to tech deals instead of reps. I just let Shuru know what was pre-planned from the past 24 hours in an act of good faith. If you want to twist it into some kind of extortion attempt, be my guest I suppose. Ejay, how does that look like a proposal? That looks like an alliance that is new to the art of negotiations feeling their way through their first surrender, looking at past history of what their previous alliances have seen, and wondering what's changed from just six months ago in the Coalition war. Twisted, an act of good faith is not normally telling an alliance that they are planning on having an ally attack them, that is forcing an alliance into accepting terms or die. No matter if TFO was going to be ended if they continued fighting. If TSI is anyway vengeful they will continue the grudge you hold against TPF. The fact of the matter is these are not the beliefs of Karma and TFO and IS should not be demanding such harsh reps from TSI. Josshill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckz3 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I think its best for TSI, TFO and IS if the war ends sooner. If it means calling our allies to end that front, it means just that. We didn't forcefully oppress terms - by then I don't believe terms were even really on the table other than an agreement to tech deals instead of reps. I just let Shuru know what was pre-planned from the past 24 hours in an act of good faith. If you want to twist it into some kind of extortion attempt, be my guest I suppose. Ejay, how does that look like a proposal? That looks like an alliance that is new to the art of negotiations feeling their way through their first surrender, looking at past history of what their previous alliances have seen, and wondering what's changed from just six months ago in the Coalition war. Twisted, an act of good faith is not normally telling an alliance that they are planning on having an ally attack them, that is forcing an alliance into accepting terms or die. No matter if TFO was going to be ended if they continued fighting. If TSI is anyway vengeful they will continue the grudge you hold against TPF. The fact of the matter is these are not the beliefs of Karma and TFO and IS should not be demanding such harsh reps from TSI. Josshill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Your cute but dumb as a post. This post would have carried more weight if you had used the correct form of "you're." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 These terms are very reasonable, my issue is that alliances who have done worse than TSI (NADC and NATO for instance) are getting off with white peace, while TSI is forced into terms. But that's Bob for you. It's all about whether or not you have the power to get away with demanding things like this, NADC and NATO would have kept fighting and done quite a bit of damage, TSI was a small alliance and PC could have just put them into a FAN situation if they wanted, and most likely would have after they brought in RAD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) not really... look at SSSW18's terms.Anyways you all are missing the point. WHY did IS enter this war? To defend TFO... an alliance they have no treaties with. Their only connection is that they are both PROTECTORATES of PC... sequence of events: DT declares on TPF because of their treaty with PC PC declared on TPF because of their treaty with DT TFO declares on TPF because of their protectorate with PC TSI declares on TFO because of the OPP IS declares in defense of TFO because of their protectorate with PC edit: if shuru doesnt care, I don't. No matter how many times I read that, I still enjoy reading those first to lines in the sequence. Edited May 5, 2009 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Well... Goodluck to TSI.... Stay Awesome. o/ TSI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) As if the first post and its contents weren't enough, cowen's and Twisted's and CTB's comments just keep on rolling in with their non-enlightening and self-damning points. [OOC]I count many in PC and TFO as good friends, don't take this personally guys, my comments are IC of course.[/OOC] Also, how could I forget, best of luck to TSI. James Edited May 5, 2009 by rabonnobar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I never thought they'd pull these terms3 mil/150 :o Don't be too shocked. That was the going rate in the NPO market for their members up until relatively recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Cash Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I would also like to mention that I did take Twisted telling me about RAD as an act in good faith. We've been on very good terms the past few days, and I fully understand that they would want to protect their protectorates. It didn't sound like a threat to me, and I would have reacted much less friendly if he had. It was a factor in my decision, but I found it to be helpful information, rather than a threat. I do think that an alliance is obligated to defend their Protectorates, and it was used to get us out of the war, I do understand why.with all due respect (which to you i give a lot), i think you take pcs actions far too lightly. perhaps it is a credit to your character, but i personally cannot believe it was done with any intent beyond pushing you to pay their outrageous demands. i will say however, the level of respect coming from tsi in the face of this extortion... i am speechless. tsi is going to go very far in this game, that i know for sureas far as im concerned though it doesnt matter if you tell a tech raid victim nicely and in good faith that hes going to be nuked, its still extortion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 NADC and NATO would have kept fighting and done quite a bit of damage Done what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedRebelDB47 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Twisted, an act of good faith is not normally telling an alliance that they are planning on having an ally attack them, that is forcing an alliance into accepting terms or die. No matter if TFO was going to be ended if they continued fighting. If TSI is anyway vengeful they will continue the grudge you hold against TPF. The fact of the matter is these are not the beliefs of Karma and TFO and IS should not be demanding such harsh reps from TSI.Josshill Please read this post: HERE. What would you rather have? TSI wanted to fight for 3-4 more days. These are our options: 1. We allow our protectorates IS and TFO to continue losing significant damage alone until TSI calls it quits. 2. We ask our brothers at RAD to help us, and we force TSI to eat unneeded significant damage, helping save IS and TFO damage. 3. We tell TSI that RAD is coming to IS and TFO's defenses, and we save IS, TFO and TSI damage. It wasn't a threat. It was a please let's make this decision soon and end the carnage, because I regret us allowing TFO and IS into this fight and being unable to defend them when they were hit back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian LaCroix Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Twisted, an act of good faith is not normally telling an alliance that they are planning on having an ally attack them, that is forcing an alliance into accepting terms or die. No matter if TFO was going to be ended if they continued fighting. If TSI is anyway vengeful they will continue the grudge you hold against TPF. The fact of the matter is these are not the beliefs of Karma and TFO and IS should not be demanding such harsh reps from TSI.Josshill So... You would rather they just had RAD attack them? I don't see why people are bent out of shape at the fact that PC was going to call in more of their allies in a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Done what? Would have tied up quite a few Karma nations for quite a bit of time, they obviously wouldn't have won but they still could have left you a bloody nose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirDog Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I never thought they'd pull these terms3 mil/150 :o Yes I agree it should be at least 100,000 tech paid as reps as one alliance had to pay during the the noCB War. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabonnobar Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) Don't be too shocked. That was the going rate in the NPO market for their members up until relatively recently. May I ask how on Bob that is relevant? "NPO did it to their members, we're beating them down for their evil actions! Down with imperialist dictators!" ... "Hey, NPO did it, that means we can too!" Edited May 5, 2009 by rabonnobar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 It wasn't a threat. It was a please let's make this decision soon and end the carnage, because I regret us allowing TFO and IS into this fight and being unable to defend them when they were hit back. That, I can respect. Thank you, Twisted, for clearing that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Done what? Yes, I read President Mogar's communiqués backwards like I usually do, it's a quirk of mine. Anyway, it all made plenty of sense and I agreed with it until he revealed that the alliances in question were "technical defeat, strategic victory" NADC and NATO. I think you may have gotten these alliances confused, Mogar. Please go back and check, for my sanity. 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.