Alterego Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 The UJW ring any bells? Apparently not This war is the relevant one, not one that happened 2 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This war is the relevant one, not one that happened 2 years ago. It's actually quite relevant when someone uses the word "NEVER" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Particularly when the motivation for several people in this war is the righting of past wrongs, some much older even than UjW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Says the man who wasn't even in TPF until recently. You sir are the equivalent of a TOOL rogue, jumping to whichever alliance in which you could semi-legitimately continue this unrighteous war, Which is it? Jumping alliances during was it either right for all or wrong for all. There are plenty of reasons for Dani to be very annoyed with mhawk over the 'CB' for this war, justification enough for switching alliances and fronts when Mhawk is already on the other side, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Bama is perfectly entitled to jump alliances, but he can't claim the mantle of TPF self-righteousness immediately like he is trying to do. In addition, the situations are rather different in that Dani was simply switching fronts (both OV and PC were engaged in the greater war), whereas Bama has chosen to ignore the fact that his alliance has surrendered to jump back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 heh, well actually I wasn't aware he is not TORN emperor anymore. I haven't seen any full announcements about it. I had to pick it up from comments dropped every now and then in other topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This war is the relevant one, not one that happened 2 years ago. Weren't you the one belittling Stumpy for his attitude towards BAPS after a treaty didn't exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I haven't seen any full announcements about it. I had to pick it up from comments dropped every now and then in other topics. The changes were announced here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 The UJW ring any bells? Apparently not I wasn't in the UJW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Okay, let's use a similar line of thought, Vol. TORN had a massive gov before we placed a new charter in. Of that massive government (We had 10 people, if not more) only 3 at this moment have any sort of government power (and one of them, bigwoody, plays a greatly reduced role in the government). TORN's government has drastically changed, much as you say TPF's did. If your argument revolves around the "Government is different" point, than I would hope it would be safe to assume that the same applies to TORN also. By those means the justified actions of TORN during the beginning of the Karma war should also be "history," correct? EDIT: someone special was just elected as TORN's Representative. That brings the total to 3. I agree you get a new start, however that also means a new relationship must be built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I wasn't in the UJW. TPF barely was either - but since Bama claimed that TPF "never leaves a man behind" I simply pointed out the fact that they have, infact, left many men behind in the past. Since you are not TPF, just their current leader, you not being involed in the UJW has no bearing on his comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I wasn't in the UJW. Regardless if the entire alliance is turned over, people will always remember TPF for the UPJ war and the NoV incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Regardless if the entire alliance is turned over, people will always remember TPF for the UPJ war and the NoV incident. Then let us make the qualifier, no alliance led by me will leave a friend behind. We will be the last ones out always. Edited June 17, 2009 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Then let us make the qualifier, no alliance led by me will leave a friend behind. We will be the last ones out always. You're off to a good start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Then let us make the qualifier, no alliance led by me will leave a friend behind. We will be the last ones out always. So far you fit that description well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 I agree you get a new start, however that also means a new relationship must be built. This is kinda status quo in the cyberverse, although I never did quite understand it. When a treaty is signed, its benefits and sentiment SHOULD be spread alliance-wide to all signatories. Dropping, or reviewing treaties because of a government change(which 95% of the time is someone in the alliance replaces someone else in the alliance), tends to indicate that the treaty never reflected a feeling of friendship between one alliance and the other, but rather a "hey, our current govs like each other" attitude. Not knowing a new incoming government, does not change the fact that the alliance is the same group of people it was the day before the government change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This is kinda status quo in the cyberverse, although I never did quite understand it. When a treaty is signed, its benefits and sentiment SHOULD be spread alliance-wide to all signatories. Dropping, or reviewing treaties because of a government change(which 95% of the time is someone in the alliance replaces someone else in the alliance), tends to indicate that the treaty never reflected a feeling of friendship between one alliance and the other, but rather a "hey, our current govs like each other" attitude. Not knowing a new incoming government, does not change the fact that the alliance is the same group of people it was the day before the government change. That is very accurate statement, though it does not apply to this announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Then let us make the qualifier, no alliance led by me will leave a friend behind. We will be the last ones out always. That's ridiculous, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 This is kinda status quo in the cyberverse, although I never did quite understand it. When a treaty is signed, its benefits and sentiment SHOULD be spread alliance-wide to all signatories. Dropping, or reviewing treaties because of a government change(which 95% of the time is someone in the alliance replaces someone else in the alliance), tends to indicate that the treaty never reflected a feeling of friendship between one alliance and the other, but rather a "hey, our current govs like each other" attitude. Not knowing a new incoming government, does not change the fact that the alliance is the same group of people it was the day before the government change. However this cancellation was not due to gov change. Rather several issues that remain unresolved. We consider the issue over now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Also, I need to find a stapler to put my head back on. It spun clean off trying to follow this topic. In a single thread we've been insulted for leaving war too early and staying in war too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 That is very accurate statement, though it does not apply to this announcement. (OOC)*note to self* Pay attention to open tabs FTW....this post is TOTALLY in the wrong topic because some idiot decided to post with 21 open tabs.(OOC)... I dont even remeber what I meant to say here....Now I feel dumb. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Also, I need to find a stapler to put my head back on. It spun clean off trying to follow this topic. In a single thread we've been insulted for leaving war too early and staying in war too long. It's not the same war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 To the person in TORN who wants a clean slate due to your recent Gov change. You have one with us. This treaty didn't reflect a clean slate, it reflected a close relationship that from my point of view, your previous Gov chose not to keep during this war. Hopefully your new Gov will be able to work with mhawk and our relationship improves to a level where a treaty is possible. I know that Rach has already been trying to mend some fences. She's good folk and hopefully she does good things for TORN. Regardless if the entire alliance is turned over, people will always remember TPF for the UPJ war and the NoV incident. Once again, Bob's biggest problem imo. Even if no one associated with past decisions is still in power or even in the alliance, the past will never be forgiven or forgotten by many and that past will be raised in a negative fashion for years thereafter. The silly thing about it is that the people who generated the negative feelings that many have towards a particular alliance are in other alliances. When they arrive in those alliances they suddenly get a clean slate. Yet people in the alliance they left are blamed for actions they had no part in at all, even years later. The only path an alliance has to a clean slate now seems to be disbanding and reforming months or years later or switching sides at the last minute and helping to stomp your much hated former ally. Taking a beating used to work, as it did with Polaris, but that seems to be gone now. Of course that is possibly because the alliances that took down Polaris aren't really on the "vengence" kick that the other parts of Karma are on. Those same alliances have been fairly willing to let the past go in this war as well. Though some from the vengence camp are saying they are remembering their Hegemoic past too well and giving light terms because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymatty Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Quite frankly sir, we don't !@#$@#$ give a damn about how much this war damages us. Our brothers and allies are out there. -Bama Wait...you do know you are still in hippy mode right? I mean, your brothers and allies are out here, actually...you know...fighting. They don't seem to "give a damn" how much the war damages THEM. You sir seem like you DO care how much damage you take. You could be out sending Aid, fighting alongside your "brothers and allies". I did fight you one round, I know you WERE out fighting, but not any more. To be honest you knocked my teeth out as well as a couple others I'm sure. I also managed a quick spy attempt on you and your War Chest was/is HUGE. What gives? You rant seems to ring very hollow shouted behind the wings of a dove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Wait...you do know you are still in hippy mode right? I mean, your brothers and allies are out here, actually...you know...fighting. They don't seem to "give a damn" how much the war damages THEM. You sir seem like you DO care how much damage you take. You could be out sending Aid, fighting alongside your "brothers and allies". I did fight you one round, I know you WERE out fighting, but not any more. To be honest you knocked my teeth out as well as a couple others I'm sure. I also managed a quick spy attempt on you and your War Chest was/is HUGE. What gives? You rant seems to ring very hollow shouted behind the wings of a dove. He was following my orders per his leave of absence thread. 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.