Kryievla Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) You are known for the things your affiliation does. Take responsibility for them. NoR doesn't deny any past grievances. Good for them, people that play CN still have their opinions about them. Know your history for which you attach yourself too. You can't rewrite it, as hard as NPO tries too. I'm not saying anything that didn't happen. My home was forbidden to return to, that whole "zombification" . I know the feeling about crap getting stuck to your shoes and everyone pointing it out to you, yes it does get old. But when you never clean it off, it won't go away. What exactly are TPF trying to rewrite? I'm just a little confused. Two years ago someone else ran the alliance. Two years ago they surrendered. It's been two bloody years. They are fighting now (when they surrendered before) so it sounds to me like that's something of a change, no? They are being at least cordial with old enemies, which is also a change. They are also seeing to the care of their friends. I cannot fathom for the life of me why you keep slamming at them. What more do you want from them? Edited July 14, 2009 by Kryievla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AUT Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 The Aut makes me laugh. Wait what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 The Aut makes me laugh. Oh and thank you Sileath, I mean Bama for your constructive criticism and fact based response. Exact opposite of what? Your ability to not handle a protectorate alliance of 50 + people that in no way somehow have the capacity to protect themselves? Good luck, have fun, good game. The context is 1) Defending allies until the end. 2) Working with alliances whom we had strong disagreements with to find common ground, instead of witch hunts. You complain so much about originality, but all you have to say is " ujp ujp ujp, ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. But ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. I was in ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. You guys did x in ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. ujp did ujp ujpujp". Could you give criticism of something in the 10 months perhaps? At least then we can properly respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) The context is 1) Defending allies until the end. 2) Working with alliances whom we had strong disagreements with to find common ground, instead of witch hunts. You complain so much about originality, but all you have to say is " ujp ujp ujp, ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. But ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. I was in ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. You guys did x in ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. ujp did ujp ujpujp". Could you give criticism of something in the 10 months perhaps? At least then we can properly respond. I can help Also, wtf the UJP is 2 years ago? I have been playing way too long. Edited July 14, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Frankly this just sort of strikes me as silly on TSI's part. I know from experiencee that in times of peace, if TSI were to start considering changing protectorates that they would get rolled or imprisoned by TPF, but that's not a problem right now. I'm about utility. The purpose of a protectorate treaty is protection. TPF can't protect TSI. So, TSI should cancel that treaty; if they're in OPP they should just pull out, and if they still thought they needed a protector, find a new one. But what I see is TSI trying to be "nice" and stick with TPF for sentimental reasons while still covering their butts in the protection area. Fine, then, transfer the protectorate to a ToA, sign a protectorate deal with NoR. Edited July 14, 2009 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 The Aut makes me laugh. Oh and thank you Sileath, I mean Bama for your constructive criticism and fact based response. Exact opposite of what? Your ability to not handle a protectorate alliance of 50 + people that in no way somehow have the capacity to protect themselves? Good luck, have fun, good game. Wait what? What does that have to do with the discussion we were just having? -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Real change is never easy and we thank Kingzog for allowing this most awkward of dances to start between our two alliances. Oh gross! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Monkey Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Frankly this just sort of strikes me as silly on TSI's part. I know from experiencee that in times of peace, if TSI were to start considering changing protectorates that they would get rolled or imprisoned by TPF, but that's not a problem right now.I'm about utility. The purpose of a protectorate treaty is protection. TPF can't protect TSI. So, TSI should cancel that treaty; if they're in OPP they should just pull out, and if they still thought they needed a protector, find a new one. But what I see is TSI trying to be "nice" and stick with TPF for sentimental reasons while still covering their butts in the protection area. Fine, then, transfer the protectorate to a ToA, sign a protectorate deal with NoR. Maybe they are just using this as propaganda tool to associate the TPF with NoR in a good way to show that the TPF has changed. So people hate them less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Maybe they are just using this as propaganda tool to associate the TPF with NoR in a good way to show that the TPF has changed. So people hate them less. I'm getting the feeling you didn't read the second post in this thread. Frankly this just sort of strikes me as silly on TSI's part. I know from experiencee that in times of peace, if TSI were to start considering changing protectorates that they would get rolled or imprisoned by TPF, but that's not a problem right now.I'm about utility. The purpose of a protectorate treaty is protection. TPF can't protect TSI. So, TSI should cancel that treaty; if they're in OPP they should just pull out, and if they still thought they needed a protector, find a new one. But what I see is TSI trying to be "nice" and stick with TPF for sentimental reasons while still covering their butts in the protection area. Fine, then, transfer the protectorate to a ToA, sign a protectorate deal with NoR. I don't think you read it, either. Edited July 14, 2009 by kingzog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemhauser Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Maybe they are just using this as propaganda tool to associate the TPF with NoR in a good way to show that the TPF has changed. So people hate them less. Just wait until you see the MADP between NoR and TPF next week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Monkey Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I'm getting the feeling you didn't read the second post in this thread.I don't think you read it, either. So many posts in one thread ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Maybe they are just using this as propaganda tool to associate the TPF with NoR in a good way to show that the TPF has changed. So people hate them less. Do you REALLY want to take that to the bank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemhauser Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 So many posts in one thread ... Posts... Yeah, threads tend to have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Just wait until you see the MADP between NoR and TPF next week! I hurd NoR was gonna enter the war on our side. Fashionably late and all that. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Monkey Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Posts... Yeah, threads tend to have them. Hey, you just pulled a hizzy Sorry though, I didn't read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I don't think you read it, either. In fact, I did. The contents of your address don't really hit on anything I said. TSI came to you about protection, you decided it was below you to "poach" a protectorate (even though it's not poaching if they came to you first--that's the sovereignty you were talking about), you defer TSI's foreign affairs to TPF (that's the exact opposite of the sovereignty you were talking about). Blah, blah, TSI--a 50-nation alliance--needs protection, TPF can't do it, NoR will. So, as I said, TSI wants protection, the guys that are supposed to protect them can't, the treaty has no utility. If there are debts pay them off, cancel the protection, find someone that can protect you. There doesn't have to be any bad blood involved--it's not like cancelling a ToA because war is on the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberSpion Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 The context is 1) Defending allies until the end. 2) Working with alliances whom we had strong disagreements with to find common ground, instead of witch hunts. You complain so much about originality, but all you have to say is " ujp ujp ujp, ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. But ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. I was in ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. You guys did x in ujp ujp ujp ujp ujp. ujp did ujp ujpujp". Could you give criticism of something in the 10 months perhaps? At least then we can properly respond. your ability to copy paste boggles the mind sir... Frankly this just sort of strikes me as silly on TSI's part. I know from experiencee that in times of peace, if TSI were to start considering changing protectorates that they would get rolled or imprisoned by TPF, but that's not a problem right now.I'm about utility. The purpose of a protectorate treaty is protection. TPF can't protect TSI. So, TSI should cancel that treaty; if they're in OPP they should just pull out, and if they still thought they needed a protector, find a new one. But what I see is TSI trying to be "nice" and stick with TPF for sentimental reasons while still covering their butts in the protection area. Fine, then, transfer the protectorate to a ToA, sign a protectorate deal with NoR. I've seen first hand the implications that being a protectorate of TPF can bring. Schatt was spot on. I just found it silly given the previous nature of TPF's OPP requirements to allow such a thing. Generally the alliance is drawn, quartered, evil overlorded, then raided. Oh and what I am referring too happened near two years ago. OMG READ ALL ABOUT IT, PEOPLE BRINGING UP STUFF FROM LONG AGO ON THE CYBERNATIONS!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 I've seen first hand the implications that being a protectorate of TPF can bring. Schatt was spot on. I just found it silly given the previous nature of TPF's OPP requirements to allow such a thing. Generally the alliance is drawn, quartered, evil overlorded, then raided. Oh and what I am referring too happened near two years ago. OMG READ ALL ABOUT IT, PEOPLE BRINGING UP STUFF FROM LONG AGO ON THE CYBERNATIONS!! Sells papers. But seriously, has any alliance successfully graduated from OPP or any other TPF protection setup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted July 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Sells papers. But seriously, has any alliance successfully graduated from OPP or any other TPF protection setup? Quite a few, SSSW18 and NEW for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Manbearpig Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Frankly this just sort of strikes me as silly on TSI's part. I know from experiencee that in times of peace, if TSI were to start considering changing protectorates that they would get rolled or imprisoned by TPF, but that's not a problem right now.I'm about utility. The purpose of a protectorate treaty is protection. TPF can't protect TSI. So, TSI should cancel that treaty; if they're in OPP they should just pull out, and if they still thought they needed a protector, find a new one. But what I see is TSI trying to be "nice" and stick with TPF for sentimental reasons while still covering their butts in the protection area. Fine, then, transfer the protectorate to a ToA, sign a protectorate deal with NoR. MAYBE, just MAYBE they are not canceling their protectorate because they like TPF, they appreciate what TPF has done for them, and they don't want to to walk out on a friend. your ability to copy paste boggles the mind sir... Good job addressing his post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) Schattenman's view of strict logical utility has valid points, but that does not mean TSI are obligated to abide by his version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to Cybernations. Perhaps two protectors are better than one? Surely I wouldn't know. In addition, there are more angles to survival than simply the statistical capability of nations. Different code. Different method. Edit: Edit function is clarification's friend. Edited July 14, 2009 by Heyman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Sells papers. But seriously, has any alliance successfully graduated from OPP or any other TPF protection setup? TOOL (joint protection with \m/), NEW, SSSW18, Defcon (before they had that internal fustercluck) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 MAYBE, just MAYBE they are not canceling their protectorate because they like TPF, they appreciate what TPF has done for them, and they don't want to to walk out on a friend. We've covered sentimentality, but thanks. Bringing your foreign policy in line with reality does not necessitate "walking out on a friend" (which is a pretty funny point to bring up unless I missed something and TSI is engaging alliances that are at war with TPF). If you would like to address the issue of "a protectorate treaty with an alliance that cannot protect you makes no sense" then you are welcome to try. Keep in mind that I already said that if they're still great friends with TPF then they should sign a ToA with TPF to reflect their friendship. Schattenman's view of strict logical utility has valid points, but that does not mean TSI are obligated to abide by his version of the Hitchhiker's Guide to Cybernations. Perhaps two protectors are better than one? Surely I wouldn't know. In addition, there are more angles to survival than simply the statistical capability of nations. Different code. Different method. Two protectors are not better than one when the value of one protector/treaty is 0. 1+0 equals 1. Again, I'm not saying TSI should cut all ties with TPF because they're losing a war right now. I', saying that the whole situation is just sort of bass-ackwards and silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 Two protectors are not better than one when the value of one protector/treaty is 0. 1+0 equals 1.Again, I'm not saying TSI should cut all ties with TPF because they're losing a war right now. I', saying that the whole situation is just sort of bass-ackwards and silly. If you are going to equate us to 0, then stop pretending to use the whole "logical utility" argument. You know fully well that considering The Phoenix Federation as a nonalliance would have to originate from an emotional and political viewpoint. I can completely understand the negative stances on my alliance, but I would rather that they stayed consistent. If we have nations, we can fight, and in turn can fight for The Sasori Initiative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted July 14, 2009 Report Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) If you are going to equate us to 0, then stop pretending to use the whole "logical utility" argument. You know fully well that considering The Phoenix Federation as a nonalliance would have to originate from an emotional and political viewpoint. I can completely understand the negative stances on my alliance, but I would rather that they stayed consistent. If we have nations, we can fight, and in turn can fight for The Sasori Initiative. Your leap to apply my number to a definition of TPF as a "nonalliance" is rooted in your emotions, not mine. I assign TPF a protection value of 0 because TPF is incapable of giving anything except token assistance to TSI at this point in time--0. TPF's value as a protector is 0 because TPF is incapable of protecting any alliance from AOD Brigade to NPO as a simple matter of fact. You assume it to be an insult about TPF because you're down and out right now, and you've been defending yourselves from insults for the past two months. Don't apply your hair-trigger emotions to me; I'm more at ease than I've been in a year. Edited July 14, 2009 by Schattenmann 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.