RustyNail Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Much respect to our good friends in TOP on a hard decision. I can assure you all that TOP SPEED, though infuriating at times is a good thing as it keeps hasty judgments to a minimum and allows all sides to be examined. I don't see this as being about the end of a treaty but a friendship lost. Maybe it can be rebuilt someday but for now, this is the course of things. o/ TOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Are you serious? This is the first honest treaty cancellation I've seen in a while.Most of them are like WELL LIKE WE ARE BFFS BUT LIKE WE HAVE GONE OUR SEPARATE WAYS LOL WE STILL <3 THEM LOL. TOP, having realized how NPO views them, have canceled their treaty in a respectful yet truthful manner. This is the best explanation I've seen in a long time. I concur hence my lack of bridge-dweller behavior Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Well it's about time. Good luck TOP in your new role as THE elite alliance in CN. Good luck NPO in your new role as rebuilding a former empire. This, this should be fun to watch. o/ Wishing nothing but the best to both alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buller Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Delete button where art thou Edited May 21, 2009 by Buller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski11585 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I certainly know how much TOP valued their first MDP partner. While I'm no doubt chuckling at the "TOP-speed" joke, I realize that they engaged in a lively, and probably spirited, debate about this issue. Good luck, TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I'll just wish Pacifica the best in their future ventures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 NO WAI! unexpected/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIdiot the Great Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 With all due respect, the allies you are working closest with in the current war, alliances you have been speaking privately with for months about a possible attack, are shooting at NPO as targets bear. I fail to see what was difficult about it. Common sense would dictate that this treaty be canceled, indeed it is overdue. Ok, let me break it down for you, since it seems to escape you. TOP had an MDoAP with NPO. That 'o' as it turns out, is very, very important. It means 'OPTIONAL' as in 'hey, we will decide on a case by case basis whether we will join you in an AGGRESSIVE (the big 'A' after the little 'o') venture. Now we've all seen the Tattler logs where TOP was mediating, or attempting to mediate, peace between OV and NPO. That right there is a pretty good indication that TOP probably was not along for the ride. Otherwise, you'd have to assume TOP was acting in bad faith in mediating those talks, and I really haven't seen anyone say that TOP didn't mediate in anything but good faith. And for what it's worth, I know TOP did want those peace talks to work, and they were in fact very hurt when they didn't work out. But anyway, so TOP was not along for the ride. At that point, whoever attacked NPO for its AGGRESSIVE action on OV was not subject to TOP attacking based on the DEFENSE clause because...wait for it...it wasn't a DEFENSIVE action. Just because NPO chased what they thought was a bear cub into a cave, only to discovery 'holy !@#$, ma and pa bear are home and super pissed' does NOT transform this action into a defensive one. At best, it transforms it into a poorly conceived aggressive action. So it did not matter who attacked NPO at that point as the action was aggressive by its inception, hence whether it was 'TOP's friends' or however you want to put it, shooting at NPO doesn't invalidate, or require a cancellation of, the treaty. And if you know anything about TOP canceling a two and a half year old treaty was not something taken lightly, or without discretion and discussion. And let's face it, in two and a half years, a lot has changed, so it's not slanting the truth to say that certain actions required a re-examination of this treaty. In short, it wasn't overdue because nothing was 'due' at this time at all. VI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 While I dislike the need to contradict a fellow alliance member in public, I feel it necessary to note that the bolded portion above is incorrect. My bad. It was VE that iFOK was linked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I know that TOP teetered between neutrality and joining the coalition and that the talks with them were rather extensive and at times frustrating. I was rather surprised that you landed them, actually. But then landing Citadel (or as much of it as possible) was key to the operation, wasn't it?At some point I look forward to some genuine war post recounting of how the whole thing came together--assuming people are finally willing to be honest. The details prior to my departure I'm confident in, at least those shared in #sfdelegation. The bit about getting MK on board later on I was not there for and it should be a good read. Dont be so droll. TOP had an MDoAP with NPO, also a ODP with IRON (we all know how much TOP values OUT ) and with Continuum whose treaty overrode all other alliance treaties. Surely if such a thing was happening or indeed happened TOP would have informed both IRON and NPO alongside other Continuum members due to its treaty obligations, especially to its oldest ally. Begone naysayer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I still find it hard to believe that they are just finding out that the NPO has used them as a "strategic asset".It was pretty obvious from the beginning and it was clear that they didn't care because it was a mutually beneficial relationship. Edit: don't mistake honesty with two parties apparently parting ways on bad terms. TOP must have skewed the truth at least to some degree here. In all honesty it could be that they were working on a friendship and hoping something would come of it in time, and this war just expired that time limit... But everyone knows thats not how diplomacy works. AmIrite? TOP is a good alliance with very respectable members. NPO is a good alliance with very respectable members. Perhaps they saw a common ground and wanted to make something of it? Or perhaps it was strategic and now it's not. Whatever the cause, the status quo has changed and that means that all of us should be reactionary and look very closely at what we are, where we want to go, and who is going there with us. You can hardly blame TOP for canceling a treaty that should have been long before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I still find it hard to believe that they are just finding out that the NPO has used them as a "strategic asset".It was pretty obvious from the beginning and it was clear that they didn't care because it was a mutually beneficial relationship. Edit: don't mistake honesty with two parties apparently parting ways on bad terms. TOP must have skewed the truth at least to some degree here. I can honestly tell you your assertion is entirely incorrect. I have dealt with TOP for over 2 years, they truly cared about the NPO - my alliance wasn't too fond with them and whenever TOP and my alliance would discuss it, they'd defend their ally and TOP + Gremlins has a relationship I truly value and would hate to ever lose. I like you Tom, but TOP didn't use anyone for a strategical purpose. TOP has IRON, TOP has Citadel, TOP has IRON, they didn't neeed NPO for anything, they have been long lasting friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatmagnus Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 TOP speed. *rimshot* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 I can honestly tell you your assertion is entirely incorrect.I have dealt with TOP for over 2 years, they truly cared about the NPO - my alliance wasn't too fond with them and whenever TOP and my alliance would discuss it, they'd defend their ally and TOP + Gremlins has a relationship I truly value and would hate to ever lose. I like you Tom, but TOP didn't use anyone for a strategical purpose. TOP has IRON, TOP has Citadel, TOP has IRON, they didn't neeed NPO for anything, they have been long lasting friends. TOP has IRON, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 TOP has IRON, eh? Over the past how many years? Yeaaap. They didn't need NPO for anything. They were there for friendship, I had to hear about it everyday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bay102174 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 TOP has IRON, eh? Yes, even though we are on the opposite side in this, I still consider them very good friends. I know they still feel the same way also. o/ TOP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 IRON is kind of useless being completely decimated and all. Also, why does TOP "have IRON" twice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan V Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) IRON is kind of useless being completely decimated and all. Don't underestimate us. Edited May 21, 2009 by Ivan V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 <snip> Also, why does TOP "have IRON" twice? That's what I was saying and everyone took it all serious-like! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Do TOP debates include the general membership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 TOP speed. Slow democratic processes are sexy. Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Do TOP debates include the general membership? Yes. Compelte with lively debate, and occasionally pistols at dawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Yes. Compelte with lively debate, and occasionally pistols at dawn. Not to mention periodic polls, mirror threads, gravedigs by people not present for the initial debate, more polls, debate, then finally... voting. How long have we had a sanction but no PiP? And we started developing PiPs a month in advance. It's kinda like the ODN except that no one tries to start a new alliance at the end of the process. Edited May 21, 2009 by WalkerNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Nah, you give Karma too much credit. It was obviously the GGA that brought Karma together to free them from the NPO Go ahead laugh it up... What puzzles me though is the extent to which people go into denial mode about certain things that were talked about prior to the war regarding its planning. If I didn't know better, I'd say that someone said or did some things they'd rather not get out. We're well past the point that OPSEC would be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 IRON is kind of useless being completely decimated and all. Also, why does TOP "have IRON" twice? Forgive my ignorance in all of this but IRON although "decimated" is in a very good position in this war. Its up against two alliances that want white peace (which are strategically larger and more important alliances - which have taken more "collateral" damage) and the hangers on, FARK, RoK and a few other ankle biters that are looking for stupid reps from an alliance which lacks the inclination or will to pay. Whilst Im sure MHA and Gramlins have achieved their objectives in regards to IRON I wonder how long they will be willing to be part of a "coalition" of alliances that are attacking IRON. If for example MHA and Gramlins decided that they no longer wanted to be a part of extortionate reparation bids by alliances that whilst attacking IRON are not taking comparitive damage or indeed abusing thier position as minor (in the grand scheme of things) alliances to get reps whilst the big boys take the damage. As I have been stating from the outset of this war; its going to be a steep learning curve for some alliances that think that they can demand reparations from any alliance that has the ability and resolve to maintain a protracted nuclear conflict with little damage to their membership numbers. Id hope that more learnered alliances would be wise enough to know that IRON is no pushover; it has the nations with cash, MP's and WRC's, it has the membership that will resist absurd terms. The question is (and here comes the one liner ) do FARK, RoK and associated ankle biters have the same resolve and cash flow to carry on? 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.