Jump to content

Announcement from VE, AZTEC, ARES, and MCXA


Recommended Posts

The current government of TSO is actually to blame for the terms laid on Polar, anyone with half a mind would have realized that.

That explains why you realised it. Did you also realise the government of Polar that was stomped last war was not the same one that committed the alleged crimes it was stomped for? As I said, you are a fool.

Yet, again, you're so ignorant of the situation you wouldn't know that. The people on your side of the conflict, that'd be FOK/TOP/TSO/RnR and co. set the reps for Polar last war. If I'm a fool, then you're just plain uneducated that's all I'll say about that.

Is this thread about FOK, TOP, TSO or RnR? No, it is about MCXA. If I see any of those alliances whining about having to pay far less reparations than they demanded others pay them, I promise to speak about that hypocrisy also.

But hey, Tyga, I'm a TPF supporter so I must be delusional, right? Give me a break, the more I speak to you the more of a joke you become to me.

I'm not sure where I mentioned your AA or political allegiance. I am countering your argument. You seem to be the only one trying to drag AA into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 632
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is this thread about FOK, TOP, TSO or RnR? No, it is about MCXA. If I see any of those alliances whining about having to pay far less reparations than they demanded others pay them, I promise to speak about that hypocrisy also.

Really? So this thread is about how MCXA should be punished because they're on the losing side of this war yet the others who are on the "righteous" side are absolved of their sin. Great logic, and you talk about hypocrisy?

Edited by The AUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you are saying that any nation who surrendered from Valhalla prior to peace being achieved, would be allowed back into Valhalla once the war is done? especially since it has been what, about 2 weeks of war, if that....

Heh. Not bloody likely ;)

I tend to think of that as more of a sovereignty issue. Were it up to me, I would not agree to terms such as that, if only for that reason.

However, it seems to be cool with MCXA, so fair enough. Congratulations on getting peace, guys :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you are saying that any nation who surrendered from Valhalla prior to peace being achieved, would be allowed back into Valhalla once the war is done? especially since it has been what, about 2 weeks of war, if that....

I really don't think Valhalla would accept them back, heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? So this thread is about how MCXA should be punished because they're on the losing side of this war yet the others who are on the "righteous" side are absolved of their sin. Great logic, and you talk about hypocrisy?

lol What?

Your incessant posting truly does help TPF's image. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly can't see why they wouldn't agree to it. If it was up to me I wouldn't let the cowards back in the alliance anyway.

If it were Valhalla, a warrior alliance in which everyone is expected to stick it out no matter what, then you'd probably have a point. MCXA is a much larger alliance with a much broader nation base, some of which no doubt have trouble finding the trigger on a rifle. There are also those nations that find themselves simply overwhelmed, don't know how to ask for aid, and when presented with surrender terms accept them, figuring that it is better to fight for MCXA another day.

I'll grant you that perhaps MCXA even sees this as a way to cull the herd. If so, it is a very cynical way to go about the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of this argument.

Really? So this thread is about how MCXA should be punished because they're on the losing side of this war yet the others who are on the "righteous" side are absolved of their sin. Great logic, and you talk about hypocrisy?

Surrendering alliances are often given terms, especially those at the core of the conflict. It's not punishment. It's surrender terms. Get over yourself.

And isn't half your argument against bringing up the Polar terms that those terms weren't wrought by this government? If so, then how could Polar have been remotely blamed for their former government's actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current government of TSO is actually to blame for the terms laid on Polar, anyone with half a mind would have realized that. Yet, again, you're so ignorant of the situation you wouldn't know that. The people on your side of the conflict, that'd be FOK/TOP/TSO/RnR and co. set the reps for Polar last war. If I'm a fool, then you're just plain uneducated that's all I'll say about that.

But hey, Tyga, I'm a TPF supporter so I must be delusional, right? Give me a break, the more I speak to you the more of a joke you become to me.

all of MCXA is to blame actually. given the precedence and considering that some current gov members were gov members then. Not to mention, could have sworn that members could have paid for the tech since that was allowed by the treaty terms. yet i did not see a single MCXA member pay for tech. so they must not have given too much of a damn about what Polaris was going through. so please, go weep for a different alliance. these terms are far more lenient than in any other war that actually had reps attached (i don't count NSO :P). even TSI has to pay more reps proportionately to their alliance size that MCXA.

and AUT, the more you speak, the bigger hypocrite you become. though i guess since you want to so completely separate yourself from your former self, this is the best route to go. what will be next, you claiming that the reps from the SPW were completely just and lenient, while these reps are a travesty that deserves the vengeance of a fiery god of war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, Polaris seemed in favor of the new MCXA government while condemning NSO.

Still, the actions of one government carry over to the next. For the new government to redo thier reputation they must correct the past. The past wasnt corrected, nor was any of the actions taken by most of tC/1V.

When the community calls out the actions of a smaller alliance (GDI) and a new gov takes its place, to correct the mistakes of a leader (Ryan) they must redo what hes done. This doesnt change when the alliance grows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That argument doesnt work. The current government didnt return the tech either, or apologize.

Tell this to Stumpy, or you'll be called Dense. Are you saying others returned the tech or fighting for Karma waivers all the ebils? If you are putting a price on Justice, at least don't sell it so cheap.

@ Tyga, awwww, at least I answered your queries three times before I asked you to stick on topic :) Anyway, lets move on with the topic, I take that the point has been acknowledged.

Surrendering alliances are often given terms, especially those at the core of the conflict. It's not punishment. It's surrender terms. Get over yourself

If there is one person on the other side who really posts with objectivity\, I must say it is Orkulus. I agree with you, this is what this is. Thank you for calling spade a spade.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh. Not bloody likely ;)

I tend to think of that as more of a sovereignty issue. Were it up to me, I would not agree to terms such as that, if only for that reason.

However, it seems to be cool with MCXA, so fair enough. Congratulations on getting peace, guys :)

ahhh... good. the world makes some sense again. i may not like you guys that much (though i have a soft spot for Hal. <3) i did not think that really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes absolutely no sense in the context of this argument.

I makes perfect sense. You have resorted to the "MCXA gov is different to the one that punished Polar" excuse as an attempt to paint anything more than white peace as unjust. Me pointing out that Polar's government changed prior to MCXA curbstomping them and demanding double the reps they now have to pay torpedoes that weak excuse. If it was perfectly acceptable to punish the new Polar government back in August for the perceived sins of the former government then you can hardly argue that is not the case for MCXA now. Ignoring the fact that these terms are not retribution for the last war but a reflection of MCXA's status as a member of the Continuum and a core member of the Hegemony.

Really? So this thread is about how MCXA should be punished because they're on the losing side of this war yet the others who are on the "righteous" side are absolved of their sin. Great logic, and you talk about hypocrisy?

If you can quote me saying anything of the sort. Please quote it for me. If you are no longer going to argue against what I said but what you want me to have said then there is no real point in continuing.

I said that if any of those alliances you have an issue with complain about paying reps in the future, I'll be right there with you pointing out their hypocrisy too. Deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were Valhalla, a warrior alliance in which everyone is expected to stick it out no matter what, then you'd probably have a point. MCXA is a much larger alliance with a much broader nation base, some of which no doubt have trouble finding the trigger on a rifle. There are also those nations that find themselves simply overwhelmed, don't know how to ask for aid, and when presented with surrender terms accept them, figuring that it is better to fight for MCXA another day.

I'll grant you that perhaps MCXA even sees this as a way to cull the herd. If so, it is a very cynical way to go about the process.

Please read my post in response to your original statement a few pages back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and AUT, the more you speak, the bigger hypocrite you become. though i guess since you want to so completely separate yourself from your former self, this is the best route to go. what will be next, you claiming that the reps from the SPW were completely just and lenient, while these reps are a travesty that deserves the vengeance of a fiery god of war?

How am I a hypocrite? I've never liked terms on an alliance after a destructive war, never have. Having fought on the losing sides of both wars I'd say I've been failry consistant on my opinions on this matter. Do I think these terms are lenient? I don't know, all I'm saying is give MCXA a way to rebuild rather than forcing them to pay reps. That's all I'm saying. MCXA honored a treaty, got jumped by Aztec, and in the end come away with having to pay reps. I've seen this before, and I've fought it twice.

Ignoring the fact that these terms are not retribution for the last war but a reflection of MCXA's status as a member of the Continuum and a core member of the Hegemony.

So MCXA is being flagged based on who they're allied with rather than their past transgressions? So those who bailed right before the war broke out are, in fact, "absolved of sin."

Got it.

I said that if any of those alliances you have an issue with complain about paying reps in the future, I'll be right there with you pointing out their hypocrisy too. Deal?

Deal, it'll be nice to be on the same side of things again. :)

Edited by The AUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any reparations as a result of this current conflict are nothing but blood money, as MCXA did nothing wrong. They simply honored a treaty.

So if I sign a treaty that says I'll support someone no matter what they do, and then they go out and do incredibly evil things... like EZI/PZI, forcing alliances to disband, forcing alliances to give up control of their forums, extorting reps that grind an alliance's development to a halt... and then when somebody attacks them for it, and I defend them, I'm just "honoring my treaty" and I have no responsibility for my allies' actions?

WRONG. You are, to an extent, responsible for what your allies do while you are defending your allies and threatening those who would oppose them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I find funny here is that the main crime that MCXA seems to be charged with is extorting NpO. NpO however have publicly stated that not only do they not support karma in "any way or form" but that they directly resent the karma movement.

Now please go on :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am amused and nothing more. MCXA is in a world of hurt, with or without punitive terms. They have no allies left to support them and they have sealed their own fate to some extent. Let them go without further mockery, they deserve a chance to show what they can do under a little bit of pressure before everyone slips the boot in again.

As for TSO, they are TOP's issue. If they are happy to be associated with them, thats their call.

At least Karma has shown itself to be fair (overly fair by some opinion) in this case, lets see what happens as we get closer to the core of the Karma crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I a hypocrite? I've never liked terms on an alliance after a destructive war, never have. Having fought on the losing sides of both wars I'd say I've been failry consistant on my opinions on this matter. Do I think these terms are lenient? I don't know, all I'm saying is give MCXA a way to rebuild rather than forcing them to pay reps. That's all I'm saying. MCXA honored a treaty, got jumped by Aztec, and in the end come away with having to pay reps. I've seen this before, and I've fought it twice.

So it's payback you seek? Interesting enough. So MCXA is being flagged based on who they're allied with rather than their past transgressions? So those who bailed right before the war broke out are, in fact, "absolved of sin."

Got it.

Deal, it'll be nice to be on the same side of things again. :lol: :)

Interesting how Nueva Vida honouring an MDoAP with VE who was attacked by MCXA, which then activated the AZTEC MADP bloc can be considered being "jumped" yet when MCXA declares on VE it is "honouring a treaty." So you like twisting words to make a point, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How am I a hypocrite? I've never liked terms on an alliance after a destructive war, never have. Having fought on the losing sides of both wars I'd say I've been failry consistant on my opinions on this matter. Do I think these terms are lenient? I don't know, all I'm saying is give MCXA a way to rebuild rather than forcing them to pay reps. That's all I'm saying. MCXA honored a treaty, got jumped by Aztec, and in the end come away with having to pay reps. I've seen this before, and I've fought it twice.

So it's payback you seek? Interesting enough. So MCXA is being flagged based on who they're allied with rather than their past transgressions? So those who bailed right before the war broke out are, in fact, "absolved of sin."

Got it.

Deal, it'll be nice to be on the same side of things again. :lol: :)

I think what Tyga has said is that this is about MCXA, if/when the time comes for the others to deal with their past then that is the time to discuss what they having coming at them. Although if they are absolved of sin just because they switched sides then I do get your point, but I dont think that is what was said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10K tech....300 million. Get over it The_Aut. Most any member above 40K NS in my alliance alone can pay for that if we had the slots.

They have 500 people with probably an avg of 4.5 or better slots. They could pay it off tonight, and not slow them down more than a speedbump.

Everytime people start the Chicken Little routine, one loses even more credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something I find funny here is that the main crime that MCXA seems to be charged with is extorting NpO. NpO however have publicly stated that not only do they not support karma in "any way or form" but that they directly resent the karma movement.

Now please go on :popcorn:

You might want to update yourself on a war currently raging that MCXA just surrendered in for further reasons for the terms given. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all the people complaining and !@#$%*ing about these terms MCXA has, well they are much fairer then half the terms they or their allies have given to people in the past. TDSM8 had to pay more tech than that, and it was what, a 15-30 man alliance? There are only one or two terms I don't really agree with on that list, and when it comes to those, well, I guess there's a reason this is called the karma war, heh?

I'm confident that most everyone would agree that TDSM8 received permanently damaging terms in hindsight and that no alliance its size should have to go through them again. This treaty in general offers moderate terms in relation to previous wars. In comparison to the terms given to other alliances in this war however, they are the worst by far. That is the main bone of contention as it were.

And yes it is called the "karma war" and the wheel doesn't stop spinning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...