mhawk Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You need to concentrate really hard now, mhawk. I'm talking about TPF being judged for their past actions. TPF did not come into being when you became leader and TPF did involve itself in curbstomps in the past and demand reps.Suck it up and move on. Then by that reasoning you completely agreed with what happened to polar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If TPF must hang for the Continuum as a whole than why is it that only half the Continuum hangs in the gallows, is the crime of one not the crime of them all? Where did I say anything of the sort? Is this an old grudge, Tyga? I realise that I am neither old...nor, exactly young...so I asked...since I'm in-between. A number of alliances with new governments have been punished for the actions of previous regimes. It is not a grudge, it is an observation of past incidents in the Cyberverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I believe I was. Elysium never fought GATO. Infact I remember fighting to defend GATO in GWIII as part of legion. Yeah, I suppose I'm off a bit on my dates. But Tyga is right. This is about more than you. It's about the alliance you inherited and their past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If this was true all those in Q and the Initiative should be in the same boat and all members of any alliance who spent time in Q and the Initiative should get individual beatdowns. This is not the case, TPF have been isolated and become the whipping boy of the day simply because the major alliances have no problem with this. The two scenarios are very different. I wonder who being allied to will be a punishable offense in the future? Let the speculation begin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yeah, I suppose I'm off a bit on my dates. But Tyga is right. This is about more than you. It's about the alliance you inherited and their past. The irony is the decision makers for the past we inherit and you demand we pay for are the leadership and members of pc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Yeah, I suppose I'm off a bit on my dates. But Tyga is right. This is about more than you. It's about the alliance you inherited and their past. You based most of your arguments against us for the last year or so on us doing exactly the same, and now you say we were justified? Nice flip flop Ragashingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I wonder who being allied to will be a punishable offense in the future?Let the speculation begin! From what has been said here today and in the past any alliance who was in Q and/or the Initiative of their own free will and have not received a beatdown for it yet will get one at some point in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 A number of alliances with new governments have been punished for the actions of previous regimes. It is not a grudge, it is an observation of past incidents in the Cyberverse. Something you condemned with the harshest words, until it's convenient for you apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strykewolf Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) A number of alliances with new governments have been punished for the actions of previous regimes. It is not a grudge, it is an observation of past incidents in the Cyberverse. Understood. Been on the recieving end of that sort of thing in the past. Provides a dilemna, doesn't it? Edited July 25, 2009 by Strykewolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The irony is the decision makers for the past we inherit and you demand we pay for are the leadership and members of pc. hahahahahahahahaha no, no they're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The irony is the decision makers for the past we inherit and you demand we pay for are the leadership and members of pc. This is a delicious irony isn't it? I guess you don't have to change, you just need to change sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Then by that reasoning you completely agreed with what happened to polar? Nope. I'm saying that alliances that supported a new government being routed for the actions of the previous government can hardly cry foul when the same thing happens to them. And the Continuum that contained TPF was complicit in that incident. The bigger difference between the two situations is that the government change in the NpO was forced upon the NpO under the pretense that a change of government would prevent the war occurring. This makes the NpO incident far more unsavoury that the stretch you are trying to make here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You based most of your arguments against us for the last year or so on us doing exactly the same, and now you say we were justified?Nice flip flop Ragashingo. What do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Nope.I'm saying that alliances that supported a new government being routed for the actions of the previous government can hardly cry foul when the same thing happens to them. And the Continuum that contained TPF was complicit in that incident. The bigger difference between the two situations is that the government change in the NpO was forced upon the NpO under the pretense that a change of government would prevent the war occurring. This makes the NpO incident far more unsavoury that the stretch you are trying to make here. Polar was never forced to change government they choose too, their sins stilll resided within the alliance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 What security blankets would they be? Some seem to keep saying that 'what goes around comes around', and that it justifies any action. Others seem to think that everything is justified by things the New Pacific Order has done in the past. There's also some issues as to whether a change in leadership really mitigates anger towards an alliance--a question that's already been put to you, and given how fast I'm posting is probably going to be answered before I finish. Tho if you answer that, what about those who lead an alliance to ruin, then leave it the reputation and themselves appear clean? I won't give examples here, since I have none to give; just thought I'd ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If this was true all those in Q and the Initiative should be in the same boat and all members of any alliance who spent time in Q and the Initiative should get individual beatdowns. This is not the case, TPF have been isolated and become the whipping boy of the day simply because the major alliances have no problem with this. The two scenarios are very different. Crap. A number of ex-Continuum alliances were beaten down and were required to pay reps. You'll also find that I spoke out against the terms offered to ex-Continuum alliances that did not involve reparations payments and was pilloried for it, probably by you. My stance on terms from the outset was for a consistent template that reflected an alliance's connection and/or role in the Continuum. Sadly, that never happened for a variety of reasons and now we end up with an inconsistent mess. As far as the ex-Continuum members that fought on Karma's side, what would you have Karma do? Turn around once TPF finally surrenders and declare war on Sparta, TOP, MHA and Grämlins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feuersturm Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Was it not too long ago we were condemned for bringing peace negotiations into the public? Edited July 25, 2009 by Feuersturm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Nope.I'm saying that alliances that supported a new government being routed for the actions of the previous government can hardly cry foul when the same thing happens to them. And the Continuum that contained TPF was complicit in that incident. The bigger difference between the two situations is that the government change in the NpO was forced upon the NpO under the pretense that a change of government would prevent the war occurring. This makes the NpO incident far more unsavoury that the stretch you are trying to make here. You can't state that tpf supporting such a move is bad at the same time not acknowledging that the current leadership was not even in the alliance at the time, but should be punished for the actions of prior gov that has left this world. If judging alliance such as that is bad, then you support our position of demanding to be judged by our actions of those in charge now and for the past 10 months. If you think it is fine to do so, then you have a point and one which we will just have to disagree on. However you can not say that you feel judging current leadership for actions that occurred far before them is bad, then in the very same sentence state it is okay this this case because the prior leadership had been involved in something bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Crap. A number of ex-Continuum alliances were beaten down and were required to pay reps. You'll also find that I spoke out against the terms offered to ex-Continuum alliances that did not involve reparations payments and was pilloried for it, probably by you.My stance on terms from the outset was for a consistent template that reflected an alliance's connection and/or role in the Continuum. Sadly, that never happened for a variety of reasons and now we end up with an inconsistent mess. As far as the ex-Continuum members that fought on Karma's side, what would you have Karma do? Turn around once TPF finally surrenders and declare war on Sparta, TOP, MHA and Grämlins? is karma not about doing what is right? or is it about doing what is convinent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Some seem to keep saying that 'what goes around comes around', and that it justifies any action. Others seem to think that everything is justified by things the New Pacific Order has done in the past. Generally the "what goes around comes around" line is in close proximity to a "you are turning into what you are fighting against" post or similar. Both are equally criengeworthy. There's also some issues as to whether a change in leadership really mitigates anger towards an alliance--a question that's already been put to you, and given how fast I'm posting is probably going to be answered before I finish. Tho if you answer that, what about those who lead an alliance to ruin, then leave it the reputation and themselves appear clean? I won't give examples here, since I have none to give; just thought I'd ask. I have answered the leadership being punished for past government policy question. I'm not 100% sure what your last question means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It means quite a lot when they are being told by the new Hegemony to cough up the last of their wealth while at the same time have their internal affairs dictated to them by PC and MK. I would rather be beaten off Bob forever showing these heartless money grabbers up for what they are than pay up and bow down to them. I will always find it hilarious that now that the tables have been turned it is money grabbing but when it was your ilk and allies reaping from war it was just business as usual. Some will say highlighting this hypocrisy gets old. I could not disagree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Crap. A number of ex-Continuum alliances were beaten down and were required to pay reps. You'll also find that I spoke out against the terms offered to ex-Continuum alliances that did not involve reparations payments and was pilloried for it, probably by you.My stance on terms from the outset was for a consistent template that reflected an alliance's connection and/or role in the Continuum. Sadly, that never happened for a variety of reasons and now we end up with an inconsistent mess. As far as the ex-Continuum members that fought on Karma's side, what would you have Karma do? Turn around once TPF finally surrenders and declare war on Sparta, TOP, MHA and Grämlins? For a lot of folks who feel their sin was being part of the Continuum and not fleeing it, that does seem to be a popular choice. Especially those who were vilified and told how horrid and abominable they were by being its members, being given a litany of sins, and so on, while seeing those they once thought of as brothers leave ... and, to some, pick up the chant themselves. Now a time out from me as memories of being told how evil I was for being in a One Vision alliance need to be put in the proper place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Regarding the TPF vs. PC idea, we may not have a treaty with PC but we are bound by this mutual conflict. Leaving them out to keep fighting alone wouldn't be fair or honorable, and it wouldn't be favorable to anyone. PC wants peace as well, I've talked with them a lot as part of putting these terms together. TPF wouldn't be in any better a position, they'd still be stuck where they are now and unable to pay anything.Anyone saying that PC hasn't "earned" the reps hasn't paid attention to PC's losses in this war. Tell me when PC was fair and honorable and I can agree with you. And no PC do not want peace, they want a reason to laugh at TPF face, if they could they would fight TPF till their disbandement. And anybone saying that PC deserve the reps hasn't paid attention to PC's actions before this war. Want a Tip? Look at noCB war. Edited July 25, 2009 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 As far as the ex-Continuum members that fought on Karma's side, what would you have Karma do? Turn around once TPF finally surrenders and declare war on Sparta, TOP, MHA and Grämlins? Its their policy to punish everyone in Q for the crimes committed by any member of that bloc. My guess is that they dont have the ability yet but will if/when an opportunistic moment presents itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You can't state that tpf supporting such a move is bad at the same time not acknowledging that the current leadership was not even in the alliance at the time, but should be punished for the actions of prior gov that has left this world. I can. TPF as an alliance supported NpO being rolled despite a new government so you can;t cry about the same being applied to yourself. If judging alliance such as that is bad, then you support our position of demanding to be judged by our actions of those in charge now and for the past 10 months. I support alliances getting a taste of their own medicine. If you really did not approve of the goings on in the Continuum, you could have left. If you think it is fine to do so, then you have a point and one which we will just have to disagree on. However you can not say that you feel judging current leadership for actions that occurred far before them is bad, then in the very same sentence state it is okay this this case because the prior leadership had been involved in something bad. You are talking in circles. Your alliance supported the punishement of an alliance depsite them changing government under threat of war if they retained the previous government. After they changed government and made a myriad of concessions to appease your allies and to avoid war your alliance still supported curbstomping the NpO. Now, when your alliance is being held to the same standard you held the NpO, you complain it is unfair. As I said, suck it up, take your medicine and move on. You'll have that clean slate you desire afterwards just like the NpO got their clean slate. 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.