Chickenzilla Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 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. Come now, 50% of this buildup was Vox members starting rumors that scared alliances into action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Just like how I one day have to share the story of the formation of Aegis. I'd like to hear this one day Archon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Welcome to last month TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ak47don Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 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? I think not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke William I Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 We had a good run NPO. Remember us for the good times. /sentimental break up lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 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? FARK I would expect have the resolve at least. They've proven that much in their time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defroster Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Like everything TOP does, this is full of hard cosideration and tons of class. Thanks for being a beacon of how alliances SHOULD carry themselves. I know this was a tough decision and I hope you realize that you've made the right one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Congrats to TOP on being wise enough to know when a treaty doesn't match the relationship and for being strong enough to take action on that subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) 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? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised in the coming days Edited May 21, 2009 by fireguy15207 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Congrats to TOP on being wise enough to know when a treaty doesn't match the relationship and for being strong enough to take action on that subject Isnt that how ODN operates and has been getting so much flak for? i.e you know when things arent working out; why wait for a war to dump people? I think you'll be pleasantly surprised in the coming days biggrin.gif At "Karma's" 3 billion cash and 50k tech? If you really think IRON membership will accept that you really dont know the people that make IRON Edited May 21, 2009 by bill n ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Isnt that how ODN operates and has been getting so much flak for? i.e you know when things arent working out; why wait for a war to dump people?At "Karma's" 3 billion cash and 50k tech? If you really think IRON membership will accept that you really dont know the people that make IRON You need better sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 You need better sources. Ya need to met the gov of your allies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 At "Karma's" 3 billion cash and 50k tech? If you really think IRON membership will accept that you really dont know the people that make IRON *does some math* 50k tech for IRON is the equivalent of RIA paying around 13k tech. For comparison's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 fwiw, we're Fark or Farkistan. not FARK..our name isn't an acronym Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 *does some math*50k tech for IRON is the equivalent of RIA paying around 13k tech. For comparison's sake. Whats the 3 billion come out to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Ya need to met the gov of your allies? No, for the past week we've been working on a number, and it's not 50K tech and 3B. I've been in these talks, so I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about. And yeah, 50K tech and 1B cash, IRON can pay off in about one or two cycles. Edited May 21, 2009 by fireguy15207 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 No, for the past week we've been working on a number, and it's not 50K tech and 3B. I've been in these talks, so I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about.And yeah, 50K tech and 1B cash, IRON can pay off in about one or two cycles. Then I shall just believe that gov on both sides is lying and you are telling the truth. Thanks for clarifying my mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) wow, as someone who has worked with TOP for many years, I can say that this must have been an incredibly hard decision. Sorry to see you in that position. And how about staying on topic everyone? Edited May 21, 2009 by (DAC)Syzygy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Whats the 3 billion come out to? I'm trying to figure out how to convert that. Money is a bit harder to work out than tech if only because I have no idea what IRON's remaining war chests look like. If I do an estimate by percentage of slots it would take up, (which I suppose is what matter most when dealing with money transactions) it comes out to just shy of 500 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 Anyways sorry to hear about this TOP and NPO. Best luck to both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 This treaty has caused me several headaches in the past, but I know how much it meant to TOP. The fact that you have driven TOP to drop you, NPO, should be some indication of the level of affront your actions caused. This is the right decision, classily done – not that I would expect any less from TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 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? Are you seriously doubting the resolve of Fark? The same people who were attacked the second they came into existence and faced an eternal war situation? I think if IRON needed someone to defend them, it sure as hell wouldn't be you (at least if they wanted someone who made comparisons that made sense). Before I get off topic: Good luck TOP, you guys give a good reason to get rid of pure democracy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireguy15207 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Then I shall just believe that gov on both sides is lying and you are telling the truth. Thanks for clarifying my mistake. Indeed. Everyone knows that I'm a beacon of truth and justice. In other news, I haven't read the topic (just linked to BnT's post), but I'm sure it was a hard decision for TOP to make. Edited May 22, 2009 by fireguy15207 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 This is one of the most honest treaty cancellations I have ever read. Kudos, TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Whats the 3 billion come out to? Probably less than the 600 million we had to pay out a year and a half ago and the 82k tech we had to pay out 8 months ago. 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.