Tromp Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 While that may be true, TORN is also better off without FOK (who were very blatantly hostile towards TORN a good month before FOK even dropped their MDP with them), in all fairness. Sorry for not going ontopic, but this post really made me shake my head. Obviously you know nothing about the amount of time some of us in both alliances have put in our relationship in that particular month alone. If there was any blame for hostilities, then both sides should be blamed for it. And that's all I have to say on this matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Sorry for not going ontopic, but this post really made me shake my head. Obviously you know nothing about the amount of time some of us in both alliances have put in our relationship in that particular month alone.If there was any blame for hostilities, then both sides should be blamed for it. And that's all I have to say on this matter. I think that can accurately sum up most if not all treaty cancellations or downgrades. One alliance does something the other doesn't like, communication suffers, and "poof", there it goes. On topic: Again, good luck to both alliances in re-forming bonds once held high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Your buddies in Karma set the precedent and you didnt complain this hard when they did it. Members of Karma have changed alliance to re-engage after their alliance surrendered? Re 'how is TPF harming its future': even if they are taking zero damage, and the reparations they will be asked for are not increasing, they are still putting back the day they can rebuild by a day for each day of fighting. If they fight for an extra month, they'll be forever a month behind where they would be if they surrendered today. Since they are still taking some damage, I guess it's more like a month and a half for each month of fighting. This purely material loss is offset in the earlier stage of a war by the political loss you'd take for 'running away from the fight' – while it was largely propaganda, look at the 'Coalition of Cowards' thread to see the political loss from leaving when there is no material loss. At some point though there is no longer a good political reason to stay in, and in my opinion that moment has come for TPF, although I agree that it is subjective and TPF government does not agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eye Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Trolling = moderation issue etc etc ... stop calling each other trolls in here please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Members of Karma have changed alliance to re-engage after their alliance surrendered? Re 'how is TPF harming its future': even if they are taking zero damage, and the reparations they will be asked for are not increasing, they are still putting back the day they can rebuild by a day for each day of fighting. If they fight for an extra month, they'll be forever a month behind where they would be if they surrendered today. Since they are still taking some damage, I guess it's more like a month and a half for each month of fighting. This purely material loss is offset in the earlier stage of a war by the political loss you'd take for 'running away from the fight' – while it was largely propaganda, look at the 'Coalition of Cowards' thread to see the political loss from leaving when there is no material loss. At some point though there is no longer a good political reason to stay in, and in my opinion that moment has come for TPF, although I agree that it is subjective and TPF government does not agree. You're still thinking from a sheerly pragmatist perspective... Political gains versus material losses, etc. It's not about that. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Your buddies in Karma set the precedent and you didnt complain this hard when they did it. Actually I've seen specific examples of nations fighting for other alliances as long as I've been associated with Planet Bob (Feb. 2007) and have seen specific examples people change AAs to continue fighting since GW IV (Sept. 2007). As for the case of anyone changing their AA to fight with TPF. You buy your ticket, you stay on the ride to the end. So long as you are willing to accept that and not at some point try to bail and "go home", then I don't have an issue with it. Of course if I were running an alliance I'd prefer that you maintain discipline and stick with the alliance, even if we leave the war sooner than you as a member would like. Each situation is different however and this situation has some special circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneBallMan Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Members of Karma have changed alliance to re-engage after their alliance surrendered? Re 'how is TPF harming its future': even if they are taking zero damage, and the reparations they will be asked for are not increasing, they are still putting back the day they can rebuild by a day for each day of fighting. If they fight for an extra month, they'll be forever a month behind where they would be if they surrendered today. Since they are still taking some damage, I guess it's more like a month and a half for each month of fighting. This purely material loss is offset in the earlier stage of a war by the political loss you'd take for 'running away from the fight' – while it was largely propaganda, look at the 'Coalition of Cowards' thread to see the political loss from leaving when there is no material loss. At some point though there is no longer a good political reason to stay in, and in my opinion that moment has come for TPF, although I agree that it is subjective and TPF government does not agree. Bob, your points might have merit, except for a pillar that you've not considered. Independant of the realpolitik considerations, independant of whether TPF is setting herself back, even independant of who the ally is that we've decided to back to the end, is the very survival of the alliance herself. There comes a point, as you know, where alliances develop an identity outside of their own control, and that isn't always seen in the most positive light. That we've transitioned from one long term leader, with a large persona, has made it evident that there needs to be a refreshed committment to the values that bind us. It is an overused cliché, but entirely true, that every day we stay in this fight, we grow stronger. We have seen over a 5M drop in NS and the loss of 100+ members. Many of those, in fact most, are just deletes, for people that have been with us for a long time, who no longer have a strong interest in Planet Bob. Sad to see some good friends leave. But, we've also seen our infra lovers, our less resilient, more whiny members hit the Karma POW ejection button. So, you can say, and you have, that staying in this war serves no purpose, but you've ignored the common purpose that is born of this new TPF. We will rebuild, with a small, strong, determined core, and Admin-willing be a real force on Planet Bob. We will, and like this treaty cancellation, have fewer friends as we move forward. But those friends will know, by our deeds, and not our rhetoric, that we will stand with them, no matter the circumstance. OBM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I think Bama and OBM pretty much covered everything I would have said to Bob, and are both far more qualified to make such statements than myself anyway so I'll just nod and agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I've been in a few wars, activity, commitment and all those other things always spike during wartime and in a losing war I'd imagine a siege mentality might set in, and any losses taken from the war are not really felt until the war is over and the post-war lull sets in. If a few months after the war you can still say it has made you stronger, then fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I've been in a few wars, activity, commitment and all those other things always spike during wartime and in a losing war I'd imagine a siege mentality might set in, and any losses taken from the war are not really felt until the war is over and the post-war lull sets in. If a few months after the war you can still say it has made you stronger, then fair enough. i am sure tpf will come out stronger after this war (assume that this war will end ), they still have friends who'll gladly help them rebuild best of Luck to TPF ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdasda10 Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Sorry for not going ontopic, but this post really made me shake my head. Obviously you know nothing about the amount of time some of us in both alliances have put in our relationship in that particular month alone.If there was any blame for hostilities, then both sides should be blamed for it. And that's all I have to say on this matter. What this man says is true. Both sides tried to make it work, and both sides are at fault for its collapse. It happens. Hopefully these relations can one day be restored back to their previous level. Until then we in TORN have nothing but respect for FOK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl I Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 oOoh, just another TPF treaty cancellation, no big surprise. but shouldn't you be holding onto treaties, rather than canceling since your alliance is getting smaller n' smaller?! goood luck i suppose... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Your buddies in Karma set the precedent and you didnt complain this hard when they did it. As Hal has pointed out this wasn't a precedent set by our "Karma buddies." People have been leaving alliances to fight for others for as long as I can remember before Karma's reasons for forming had even materialized. I get the impression you just like trolling Karma even when its not actually our fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 I get the impression you just like trolling Karma even when its not actually our fault. I've had that one for a while. Considering he's in nearly every announcement spouting off, I can say it's a pretty good bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 oOoh, just another TPF treaty cancellation, no big surprise. but shouldn't you be holding onto treaties, rather than canceling since your alliance is getting smaller n' smaller?! goood luck i suppose... When your allies are willing to come to peace terms before a fight even happens and in those terms signs away their ability to help Any of their allies? Don't see how that is worth much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 oOoh, just another TPF treaty cancellation, no big surprise. but shouldn't you be holding onto treaties, rather than canceling since your alliance is getting smaller n' smaller?! goood luck i suppose... So you're saying that treaties should be designed based on your alliance and the other alliance's size rather than if that treaty actually means something? Interesting outlook I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 oOoh, just another TPF treaty cancellation, no big surprise. but shouldn't you be holding onto treaties, rather than canceling since your alliance is getting smaller n' smaller?! goood luck i suppose... Because holding onto a document which doesn't carry the actual weight behind it is a tactically wise move. By your logic, the entirety of the Cyberverse should sign an automatic MDoAP with each other and then never actually bother to cancel them even when they are worthless pieces of scrap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Because holding onto a document which doesn't carry the actual weight behind it is a tactically wise move. By your logic, the entirety of the Cyberverse should sign an automatic MDoAP with each other and then never actually bother to cancel them even when they are worthless pieces of scrap. Would you like an MDAP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Would you like an MDAP? Surely, good sir. Shall we convene at 11:00am on the 'morrow? A light lunch shall be served. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 Surely, good sir. Shall we convene at 11:00am on the 'morrow? A light lunch shall be served. See you there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grabem Posted June 21, 2009 Report Share Posted June 21, 2009 I hope things work out for the best. 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.