Justice For Traitors

[Tromp]

I dare you to find a quote of me suggesting that those cowards should get away with the tech they stole from Polar. I have never indicated that in the slightest, and if you knew anything about me then you would know the bullcrap that those ridiculous cowards in TSO put me through for the past half of a year through secret terms and forcing me out of alliances.

Frankly, I agree with you.

Nothing more I can do about that though...

And @ Haf:

Revanche replied to this thread earlier with a high quality post, I suggest you go and read it again if you want to know what you can expect regarding surrender terms.

[Dochartaigh]

This post seems to have been ignored over the hustle and bustle of this thread. Any chance it could be answered? I'm quite interested in hearing the response.

i am interested to know what the so called obligations were? since most of the treaties were defensive treaties or optional aggressive treaties. defensive which means that since they are entering due to an aggressive war by their treaty partner (NPO) means they are also aggressors and therefore do not necessitate the activation of a defensive clause nor can you call an optional aggressive clause obligatory.

so please do tell me which treaty obligated Gremlins to fight for the Hegemony? or anyone else that was not pre-empted with a suspension of said treaty? (this is to KingSuck and to whoever KingSuck is quoting or anyone else for that matter)

[Haflinger]

It will be the silence of the friends that will be remembered, at least on my own personal level. You guys are honoring your obligations. We are honoring our obligations and we are paying the price for being silent partners for whatever happened...and we're taking it on the chin, but I cannot say the same for every alliance.

You guys weren't silent partners. You cancelled an MADP during wartime.

[Margrave]

I presume you've communicated your shock and anger to Mr Moldavi, in light of the NSO's announcement of white peace with TPF?

Presumption is never a wise stance to take, and before you try to get me with a "Gotcha" Argument, how about you take into account the situation at hand into your presumptions next time?

[SoxNation]

i am interested to know what the so called obligations were? since most of the treaties were defensive treaties or optional aggressive treaties. defensive which means that since they are entering due to an aggressive war by their treaty partner (NPO) means they are also aggressors and therefore do not necessitate the activation of a defensive clause nor can you call an optional aggressive clause obligatory.

so please do tell me which treaty obligated Gremlins to fight for the Hegemony? or anyone else that was not pre-empted with a suspension of said treaty? (this is to KingSuck and to whoever KingSuck is quoting or anyone else for that matter)

I keep wanting to know that too.

OG went in under Q as such noone in Citadel was obligated to defend them, NOR did OG ask us to defend them.

I'm sorry if Q thought Citadel was on their side or obligated and planned on that, but thats kinda funny to me. Because it was never the case.

[Doug Falkner]

Of course you would say this after MCXA greedily stole from Polaris at the end of the war. Why wouldn't you want easy surrender terms when you are on the receiving end? How hypocritical of someone flying MCXA AA.

KP,

To be fair, I never personally took reps from Polaris at the end of our war. Indeed, as I have noted elsewhere the vast majority of people in the MCXA who took reps from Polaris fought in various alliances that were allied in the Karma side of the conflict. Most of the people who fought against Polaris and benefitted from it are now in other alliances. Most of us remaining in MCXA have tried to make amends for that war (notice how as soon as the reigns got handed over from the TSO folks we decided to end our terms applying to you).

If you're still angry at MCXA you're picking the wrong fight. The MCXA is a new alliance. It isn't hypocritical of me to suggest we get fair terms. I argued for fair terms for NpO at the end of the last war. It was just that at that point I was a relative nobody and no one listened to me but those people who failed to listen to me are gone. All of us reformed clowns are rather fair minded people, which is why we decided to reform our clown alliance.

P.S. Also what Dochartaigh said.

P.P.S. I've always wondered are you so mad at us because you used to be one of us then things went south? If you want to come home to the MCXA, I'll argue for your acceptance.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Doug Falkner

[Doug Falkner]

I called them the good guys, because I was speaking directly to Margrave, whom of which is on the same side as I. So to both of us, they would be the good guys. Is it opinion? Yes. Does it make sense? Also yes. The difference between this, and the tyranny that your alliance has helped to continue, is that your alliance will rebuild. How many alliances have you and your allies taken advantage of with reps after already getting a !@#$ load of tech from the war itself? How many alliances have had to disband because of the hegemony? That won't happen any more. It shouldn't happen any more. If Karma does do that, they'll make an enemy out of me, that's for sure. My point is to let people rebuild, so that there may then be more war. Who needs harsh terms? They aren't important. If alliances rebuild, there's then more war, and that means more fun for all. And when I saw war, I don't mean these big alliance rollings of the past where everyone gangs up on one alliance. I mean equal war, with two sides and lots of alliances on both sides, ripping each other apart.

Maybe I'm pessimistic, maybe it's that I'm the losing side of a war but I think it's highly unlikely that things will change that much after this war. New people will achieve dominant positions, they'll try to preserve their dominance. Then you'll have a new boss that's just like the old boss, with the exception of the rhetoric. It seems to me, though I might be a bit cynical, that this war won't result in a new dynamic on Planet Bob, just a new set of hands at the reigns. That said, I could be wrong, I'd like to see myself be proven wrong but we'll see how this war plays out.

[Electron Sponge]

The MCXA is a new alliance.

Not really. You guys are better off disbanding.

[Doug Falkner]

Not really. You guys are better off disbanding.

It makes me sad to see the lack of love in that statement. Can't we just hug this out? No one needs to disband, everyone just needs more hugs.

[Electron Sponge]

It makes me sad to see the lack of love in that statement. Can't we just hug this out? No one needs to disband, everyone just needs more hugs.

lol no.

I know how little MCXA has changed.

[Doug Falkner]

lol no.

I know how little MCXA has changed.

If we didn't change would I be asking you for hugs? C'mon, we're totally different.

Seriously though, we are actually totally different. I've been in MCXA long enough to see two changing of the guards and this time there is actually much more of a commitment to being a benevolent force on Planet Bob. I must admit historically we might have been somewhat more self-interested but with changes in people, there really has been a change in ideals.

So about that hug....

[Electron Sponge]

If we didn't change would I be asking you for hugs? C'mon, we're totally different.

Seriously though, we are actually totally different. I've been in MCXA long enough to see two changing of the guards and this time there is actually much more of a commitment to being a benevolent force on Planet Bob. I must admit historically we might have been somewhat more self-interested but with changes in people, there really has been a change in ideals.

So about that hug....

Nope. Not buying it.

[MaGneT]

If we didn't change would I be asking you for hugs? C'mon, we're totally different.

Seriously though, we are actually totally different. I've been in MCXA long enough to see two changing of the guards and this time there is actually much more of a commitment to being a benevolent force on Planet Bob. I must admit historically we might have been somewhat more self-interested but with changes in people, there really has been a change in ideals.

So about that hug....

As much as I respect them, MCXA's current regime is not all you make them out to be.

[Ejayrazz]

sparta, mha, fark, gremlins, top, the rest of citadel (minus og), and of course who can forget our favorite alliance odn

these people ignored their obligations as well

the only difference is they didnt make up for their mistake by later entering to atone for their mistake, each of them ignored their obligations to the so-called 'hegemony' side until the treaties on the karma side finally chained their way up to them so they could betray those who lifted them to the level they are at now (with the exception of the optional defense network who simply jump ship every time a big war comes their way)

may i ask, margrave, what sort of punishment you have in mind for these people, who are arguably worse that those who atoned (ie admitted) for their mistake by entering anyway?

or are they somehow justified because this thread only exists for you to rage at the other side for being 'evil' or whatever the hell it is you actually believe, and this is merely a convenient cover for your true feelings?

i also enjoyed the part were you raged at the fact that innocent alliances who merely honored their word got white peace. what crime are these alliances guilty of, a number of them small protectorates who, ignorant of global politics, are entering to defend the only friends they know. seriously, the op makes you look like the biggest fool if one only takes a minute to read between the lines, but then, that was alwas who you really were, right, margrave?

(in before ad-hominem attacks)

We meet again my friend.

Grämlins didn't betray any treaty with our friends with defending them from an attack. We can move further with this conversation when you provide me an example. Make sure you know our treaties before you reply. ;D

[Doug Falkner]

Nope. Not buying it.

Interested in leasing it?

[SoxNation]

We meet again my friend.

Grämlins didn't betray any treaty with our friends with defending them from an attack. We can move further with this conversation when you provide me an example. Make sure you know our treaties before you reply. ;D

He's a troll trying to start some anti-Citadel hate obviously... He's spouted the same stuff in multiple threads and won't back it up.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Presumption is never a wise stance to take, and before you try to get me with a "Gotcha" Argument, how about you take into account the situation at hand into your presumptions next time?

So my presumption is wrong then? You haven't communicated your shock and anger to your alliance leader about the lenient terms given to TPF by your alliance and your allies? Is that because you're not shocked and angered by them? These are just questions in response to your post (and the OP), there's no need to get your back up about them, is there?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Matthew Conrad]

He's a troll trying to start some anti-Citadel hate obviously... He's spouted the same stuff in multiple threads and won't back it up.

For someone who tries to be such a genius e-lawyer, he sure didn't know the difference between what the Gremlins Codex and the Citadel were.

[Vicea]

He's a troll trying to start some anti-Citadel hate obviously... He's spouted the same stuff in multiple threads and won't back it up.

Just want to make clear here that OG hasn't called in the Lux treaty in this war.

What would have happened if we did is pure speculation, and we might have done so if treated unfairly.

However that is not the case and in my opinion the citadel alliances are not to be attacked here for not honouring their treaty with us.

[Essenia]

So my presumption is wrong then? You haven't communicated your shock and anger to your alliance leader about the lenient terms given to TPF by your alliance and your allies? Is that because you're not shocked and angered by them? These are just questions in response to your post (and the OP), there's no need to get your back up about them, is there?

Margrave is correct, you need to stop playing gotcha and look at the situation more closely. NSO is not a member of Karma.

Edited May 6, 2009 by essenia

[Haflinger]

For someone who tries to be such a genius e-lawyer, he sure didn't know the difference between what the Gremlins Codex and the Citadel were.

Geez, even I know that one. I will use a metaphor.

The Citadel is like the girl, and the Codex is like the banana.

[Demosthenes Locke]

I see now nothing but easy peace and pats on the head. Is this how you will reward Oath-Breakers and Cowards, Karma? Are you truly so blinded by idealism that you do not see that these people have betrayed their kindred and in doing so forfeited their right to stand equally amongst the community of nations? I implore you to look at the future you create by rewarding the Cowards such easy peaces!

No False Peace. No Turning Back.

Destroy them.

1) They didn't completely break their oaths with NPO. They were inevitably bound to fight under One Vision and the Continuum, despite the cancellation and suspension of individual treaties with Pacifica.

2) Karma is not Continuum; Karma is not One Vision; Karma is not Pacifica. We are proving the point that Pacifica has oppressed Digiterra through its policies and aggressive stance, which is only because it is insecure of its own position if the rest of Digiterra decided to band up and fight against her. As you can tell, this is happening now. The rest of Continuum and One Vision follow along on Pacifica through treaties, regardless of whether the alliances believe Pacifica is right in its actions.

3) Karma's values are consistent with what we believe is right and what we believe is wrong. We believe that alliances that must fight in defense of Pacifica by treaty do not deserve a punishment that Pacifica is all too well-known to give.

Because of the above, Karma grants leniency to these supporting alliances.

[HellAngel]

The Citadel is like the girl, and the Codex is like the banana.

I dont get it. Are you saying we use the codex to stroke our egos?

[Kevin Cash]

We meet again my friend.

Grämlins didn't betray any treaty with our friends with defending them from an attack. We can move further with this conversation when you provide me an example. Make sure you know our treaties before you reply. ;D

you are quoting an older post, in another thread i believe it was where i analyzed lux aeterna and am in agreement with your stance, while making the note that your treaty is quite the labyrinth of logic

however, i feel that, although you had no legal obligation to defend old guard and indeed did not make a technical violation of the treaty, that you still left an alliance which can only be implied( by the lux aeterna and its context of coming into being) was a 'friend' of the gremlins and indeed the other signatories of the lux aeterna, you left this friend not only to die on one side, but it could be argued that by entering on the other side you further helped to ensure they lost this war by adding to the might of the other 'side' and indeed flying under the same banner as those set out to harm old guard (unless i am mistaken and no part of citadel identifies itself as a component of 'karma'), and in my opinion protecting your allies is more important than harming your enemies. i would have to read the treaty again to see if it is a technical violation in terms of 'indirect aggression' against old guard, a task i can't say will be a short one

[HellAngel]

Youre a misguided little fella.

1. Old Guard did not die. We took care of that.

2. Old Guard was ONE of our allies. What about those other ten on the Karma side? Would you also complain about us letting them die if we had joined hegemony?

3. Of course we went in to win the war. That point is moot. Do you join a war to NOT damage your enemies?