Co God Ben Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I feel as though 95% of the content of this topic should have stayed in private channels.... I figured TOP would try to pull something like this at some point. You'd be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaannndddyyy Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. Indeed. Congrats to Echelon and good luck in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Well, sad but nessessary. I am sooo tired as well to see everytime an opponent is defeated and wants to surrender that this is not enough for someone. No, they must come out of their holes and cry for 'reparations' and 'terms'. Its disgusting. And even more disgusting is the 'moral pressure' these people put onto everyone who does not want to back their claims up. "You MUST support our demands! Else you are a BAD ALLY and are ABANDONING US!". Go home whiners. I wish more alliances would refuse to keep firing on already beaten opponents only because some individuals want to enforce stupid terms. The irony is rich in this post. Also your lack of knowledge towards the arguments that have been done so far. If you bother to actually read the posts most people didn't care that they left the war pushing for their own terms, but rather are laughing at the childish and hypocritical way that TOP and TSO handled this matter. But don't let me get in the way of your mindless rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) You honestly have me a little confused here. From what I understood in the OP, TOP and TSO were shown terms that were going to be presented to Echelon by the rest of the alliances on that front and asked for input. According to you, TOP and TSO's input was more or less along the lines of "no reps for us". Then, last night (the night before the OP was written), the other alliances informed TOP that the terms were going to be presented. TOP/TSO did not like that the terms were not white peace, so they made this thread to announce their own white peace. Do I have the correct timeline so far? If this is the case, it's still not honourable or proper to actually make this thread even if you were planning on giving them white peace. As is most practical and logical, each front would get 1 mass surrender thread where the reps (or lack thereof) would be addressed towards each alliance. Thus, this thread serves no purpose other than to smear another alliance. If I'm wrong, by all means feel free to explain it further. I think what he and everyone else has been saying is stop trying to mask a lack of demand for reps as a gesture of goodwill and honour, and acknowledge it for what it is; a chance to smear someone they don't like and gain some PR. If TOP truly did want to give them white peace, o/ to that, but this thread does not come off as simply a gesture of goodwill. The timeline was as follows: we were shown the terms; TSO had disputed several of them; we and TSO were waiting to discuss the terms with the others involved; we thought that we were entering the particular IRC channel last night in order to discuss the terms; and we found the terms being presented despite the fact we absolutely hadn't agreed to them. That's when we definitively made the decision to make a separate peace with Echelon. We had no desire at all to be associated with the presentation of terms that we had not agreed to, especially given that they were terms that we had found from the start somewhat excessive and, worse, deliberately humiliating in some regards. It is true that we did want white peace. Our internally agreed-to (via alliance discussion) policy upon entering this war was to attempt to secure white peace for all of our opponents, barring major misconduct in any specific case. As seen in the case of surrender terms for BAPS, this was not a rigid policy; we were willing to compromise when others alongside whom we were fighting wanted terms to be levied. The OP was not intended to insult anyone; it is composed of nothing more than a simple statement of the facts---from our perspective---followed by a statement of our decided-upon course of action. Edited May 31, 2009 by Crymson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I do hope you understand why the anger was there though. Many did feel deeply betrayed by Viridia during that time as I am sure you remember. Eh, I feel the entire situation was misinformed and it was a little bit of everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 It is indeed interesting to see TSO and TOP try and reinvent themselves as kind and caring. TSO and TOP shirking from deliberately humiliating terms? Good for you. It isn't a transparent bid to get good PR, at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 It is indeed interesting to see TSO and TOP try and reinvent themselves as kind and caring. TSO and TOP shirking from deliberately humiliating terms? Good for you. It isn't a transparent bid to get good PR, at all. Even if this is a ploy to only get good PR (which I'm not saying it is), why can't you be happy that for whatever reason Echelon is not getting punitive terms from these 2 alliances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paint Your Target Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 an odd move, but a fair enough one. TOP is now in a position where the way they operate is going to be scrutinised greatly- I hope they are up to the task, history certainly suggests that they are. PYT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Even if this is a ploy to only get good PR (which I'm not saying it is), why can't you be happy that for whatever reason Echelon is not getting punitive terms from these 2 alliances?Because I don't think Echelon deserves anything less than punitive terms. Traitors deserve no quarter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 TOP is against harsh terms now? Well, that's a change. You sure seemed to enjoy imposing those terms on Polaris. But wait, this time its against your good old buddies in the the Hegemony. Boo hoo. If you guys really cared about them you'd be dying right beside them, and frankly, TSO should. The crimes of its members have still yet to be punished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Because I don't think Echelon deserves anything less than punitive terms. Traitors deserve no quarter. And it's people like you that worry me that it will just be the same Pacifica show with different alliances. Let's all hold grudges and everytime someone loses a war we make them pay a !@#$load of reps and put them under terms for 6 months. THIS SOUNDS LIKE SO MUCH FUN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 And it's people like you that worry me that it will just be the same Pacifica show with different alliances. Let's all hold grudges and everytime someone loses a war we make them pay a !@#$load of reps and put them under terms for 6 months. THIS SOUNDS LIKE SO MUCH FUN. If polar was still holding a grudge, you'd have noticed. If these alliances wanted hegemony disbanded, you'd see that. If karma stays together and forms a bloc, I'll eat my hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 If polar was still holding a grudge, you'd have noticed. Never claimed Polar held a grudge, but cookavich does. If these alliances wanted hegemony disbanded, you'd see that. I'm sure there are karma alliances that would love to see some hegemony alliances disbanded. If karma stays together and forms a bloc, I'll eat my hat. I'm glad we can agree here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 And it's people like you that worry me that it will just be the same Pacifica show with different alliances. Let's all hold grudges and everytime someone loses a war we make them pay a !@#$load of reps and put them under terms for 6 months. THIS SOUNDS LIKE SO MUCH FUN.I have no interest in seeing Echelon saddled under the type of humiliating terms for months like Polaris was, but to let them walk away scott-free is ridiculous. They don't deserve white peace. I'm sure TOP is well aware that they've burned quite a few bridges (TSO has no bridges left) with the way they've handled themselves during this war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I have no interest in seeing Echelon saddled under the type of humiliating terms for months like Polaris was, but to let them walk away scott-free is ridiculous. They don't deserve white peace. I'm sure TOP is well aware that they've burned quite a few bridges (TSO has no bridges left) with the way they've handled themselves during this war. And Echelon will be getting terms from other alliances, just not TSO and TOP. And TOP still has its bridges with many of us, and by extension this means TSO does as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 And Echelon will be getting terms from other alliances, just not TSO and TOP. And TOP still has its bridges with many of us, and by extension this means TSO does as well. I am not really sure it works that way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I'm sure there are karma alliances that would love to see some hegemony alliances disbanded. Wonder why they're not pushing for it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leetopia II Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Even if this is a ploy to only get good PR (which I'm not saying it is), why can't you be happy that for whatever reason Echelon is not getting punitive terms from these 2 alliances? TSO/TOP wanted white peace from day 1, anything "they" might have been seeking in the terms they walked out of was not written by them. So if anything was going to be offered to TSO/TOP it's just going to be rolled into the specialfriends terms now. Anyways, I can guarantee that Echelon won't accept terms that are over and above anything they've ever been paid, which is next to nothing. So the maroons can keep waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 TSO/TOP wanted white peace from day 1, anything "they" might have been seeking in the terms they walked out of was not written by them. So if anything was going to be offered to TSO/TOP it's just going to be rolled into the specialfriends terms now. Anyways, I can guarantee that Echelon won't accept terms that are over and above anything they've ever been paid, which is next to nothing. So the maroons can keep waiting. Heh, alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Wonder why they're not pushing for it then. You think any alliance on the karma side could recover from that horrible PR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some-Guy Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I have no interest in seeing Echelon saddled under the type of humiliating terms for months like Polaris was, but to let them walk away scott-free is ridiculous. They don't deserve white peace. I'm sure TOP is well aware that they've burned quite a few bridges (TSO has no bridges left) with the way they've handled themselves during this war. Burning Bridges is my most favourite Status Quo song. As a past time? I can't really recommend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) And Echelon will be getting terms from other alliances, just not TSO and TOP. And TOP still has its bridges with many of us, and by extension this means TSO does as well.I'm well aware of that fact, and I applaud GOD for sticking to their guns.As a past time? I can't really recommend it.You're gonna want to find a hobby, then. Edited May 31, 2009 by cookavich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Oh please. Some of us are already getting attacked quite hard for what we've proposed as terms. If there really was such a craving for disbandment, alliances would up and say it. This is hardly about PR, it's about closure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 You think any alliance on the karma side could recover from that horrible PR? My comment was more towards your presumed thoughts on several Karma alliances wanting disbandment from some hegemony alliances and how your argument is actually unfounded because of lack of evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poobah Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) I'm well aware of that fact, and I applaud GOD for sticking to their guns. So you're applauding one alliance for giving terms while being pissed at another for giving white peace. That's at least what I've taken from this, but I admit I could very easily be wrong. Also, as an aside, as long as the other alliances do not give super harsh, ridiculous terms, I have absolutely no issue with reps and terms. Edited May 31, 2009 by Poobah 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.