Goose Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Please, let's not open that can of worms in this thread. There was a whole 60 something page thread about it earlier. Neither OV nor NPO are completely innocent, NPO obviously being far less innocent than OV. As for our own entrance, I'm not sure what you're talking about. We received a large majority of hails and happy posts in our declaration threads, where was all of this negativity then? I'm confused. edit: If you'd like to come into IRC and debate this topic, I'd be happy to. I'm an easy guy to find. Perhaps at the time they were unaware that you were declaring war, but making deals with the enemy without consultation or even alerting those that fought on the same side as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Sorry, you lost me. I'm afraid I'm kinda dumb and can't read into things much, could you spell it out for me? To avoid war, you need to avoid entangling treaties. Regardless, I think this has gone on sufficiently long for us to forget the initial cause of the back and forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Perhaps at the time they were unaware that you were declaring war, but making deals with the enemy without consultation or even alerting those that fought on the same side as you. TOP never made a deal with the enemy, good sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Perhaps at the time they were unaware that you were declaring war, but making deals with the enemy without consultation or even alerting those that fought on the same side as you. Could you enlighten me with an example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamed Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 TOP never made a deal with the enemy, good sir. "Don't nuke us and we won't nuke you." Ring a bell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of War Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) To avoid war, you need to avoid entangling treaties. So your problem with GOD and SF is that they aren't the GPA or TDO? Seriously? Edited May 30, 2009 by Gears of War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 "Don't nuke us and we won't nuke you."Ring a bell? I heard they also skimped on their CMs. Seriously, are we going to force an action on an alliance in a thread that is about sovereignty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 TOP never made a deal with the enemy, good sir. There's the instance of the not nuking, and the 2 weeks and white peace as quoted in the logs earlier. I'd consider those both deals with the enemy, at least if one is on the karmic side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 There's the instance of the not nuking, and the 2 weeks and white peace as quoted in the logs earlier. I'd consider those both deals with the enemy, at least if one is on the karmic side of things. The logs have nothing to do with TOP, they have refuted them. Not nuking is an alliance's right. In a thread that is about an alliance's right, are you going to bring this up as a point of disagreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I heard they also skimped on their CMs.Seriously, are we going to force an action on an alliance in a thread that is about sovereignty? No, but it is certainly something that ought to be out in the open amongst those that are supposedly on the same side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 "Don't nuke us and we won't nuke you."Ring a bell? Sounds like GW3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 No, but it is certainly something that ought to be out in the open amongst those that are supposedly on the same side. This is absurd. To what end result? Where is it ok to take away an alliance's right and where is it not? To save a coalition? To launch nukes? To determine peace terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 This is absurd.To what end result? Where is it ok to take away an alliance's right and where is it not? To save a coalition? To launch nukes? To determine peace terms? No one is saying that TOP has to do anything. We just think it's the right and honorable thing to do and are disappointed that they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 No one is saying that TOP has to do anything. We just think it's the right and honorable thing to do and are disappointed that they didn't. That's confusing then, because that's what I'm reading. They decimated their enemies, that is what was needed. If you don't want to get nuked, don't play ball. War is an ugly business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 This is absurd.To what end result? Where is it ok to take away an alliance's right and where is it not? To save a coalition? To launch nukes? To determine peace terms? I just... I have to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 That's confusing then, because that's what I'm reading.They decimated their enemies, that is what was needed. If you don't want to get nuked, don't play ball. War is an ugly business. They not only limited the damage they would put out to reduce their own losses, they did so (presumably, though some of the posts in this thread have made me question this) knowing that most of those losses would be spread amongst others engaging the same alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) They not only limited the damage they would put out to reduce their own losses, they did so (presumably, though some of the posts in this thread have made me question this) knowing that most of those losses would be spread amongst others engaging the same alliance. It is what they decided to do. That should be the end of discussion, unless we discuss the merits of multi alliance fronts where one alliance does not nuke. Even had TOP nuked, and been nuked back, people would have still been nuked. Not everyone tries to burn through their nukes like they grow on trees, so I don't buy some of the examples given here. If I launched more then a certain amount of nukes a night, I stopped trying. No sense in wasting them, let him waste his. Guess what, after two rounds of wars I still had 8 nukes on hand. EDIT: I guess I'm saying this is all a bunch of crying over something that would have happened anyway. People lose infra in wars. I'm getting tired of the posturing. Edited May 30, 2009 by Nizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Sexy Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Having read most of this train wreck of a thread, I'm surprised that TOP didn't organise for Rok to pay reps to IRON as a part of this delightful little plan. I would also like to thank TOP for not nuking, as when we all get out of nuke anarchy we can rest easy knowing the GRL is slightly lower thanks to these selfless warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 This is absurd.To what end result? Where is it ok to take away an alliance's right and where is it not? To save a coalition? To launch nukes? To determine peace terms? Well it's TOP's sovereign right to not prosecute a war as vigorously as their coalition partners want them to, and it's also their coalition partners' right to be pissed about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Well it's TOP's sovereign right to not prosecute a war as vigorously as their coalition partners want them to, and it's also their coalition partners' right to be pissed about it. I keep forgetting it is alright to shout down certain alliances in public, but not others. When I keep reading that it was part of some evil plot, that goes beyond anger. The way some of these posts read, it's ironic they are in a thread that is about sovereignty. EDIT: I understand this was everyone's first curbstomp...but you still get hurt when you attack. I don't get the concern over it, especially where it needs to be aired so violently and so publicly. EDIT EDIT: On top of that, with Delta saying TOP wasn't needed...you would have gotten hurt even more. I'm not following the line of thinking here except: "Let's play a game called 'What happens after the war'". Edited May 30, 2009 by Nizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrideAssassin Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 TWENTY-FIVE PAGES! Twenty-five pages on a topic that was settled on page one. Oh my! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaannndddyyy Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 TWENTY-FIVE PAGES!Twenty-five pages on a topic that was settled on page one. Oh my! Indeed. This thread is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 TWENTY-FIVE PAGES!Twenty-five pages on a topic that was settled on page one. Oh my! It didn't fulfill it's intent on page one, so more of an attempt had to be made to tar and feather Karma members in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 It is what they decided to do. That should be the end of discussion, unless we discuss the merits of multi alliance fronts where one alliance does not nuke.Even had TOP nuked, and been nuked back, people would have still been nuked. Not everyone tries to burn through their nukes like they grow on trees, so I don't buy some of the examples given here. If I launched more then a certain amount of nukes a night, I stopped trying. No sense in wasting them, let him waste his. Guess what, after two rounds of wars I still had 8 nukes on hand. EDIT: I guess I'm saying this is all a bunch of crying over something that would have happened anyway. People lose infra in wars. I'm getting tired of the posturing. No one is saying that we wouldn't have been nuked, just that we would have been nuked less, while at the same time their targets would have eaten more nukes, presumably of the particularly painful high tech WRC-backed variety that TOP has a reputation for. By your logic it doesn't matter if TOP join in or not. We would have lost infra anyway, TOP's targets would have lost infra anyway, there's no point! In fact, we could all just sell ourselves to ZI and save ourselves the trouble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Well it's TOP's sovereign right to not prosecute a war as vigorously as their coalition partners want them to, and it's also their coalition partners' right to be pissed about it. I get upset when I go to parties and even though ALMOST everyone else is doing drugs, some decide not to do drugs. I mean where do they get off, seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts