Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Its their policy to punish everyone in Q for the crimes committed by any member of that bloc. No it's not. Edited July 25, 2009 by Ragashingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 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. turned tables, what are you talking about? Did they not fight them in the BAPS war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 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. Don't let me interrupt your self-pity then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) 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.I have answered the leadership being punished for past government policy question. I'm not 100% sure what your last question means. I'll clarify, and make up some names to help avoid the inevitable debate about whether events actually happenned. Let's say that RulerA starts Alliance1. It grows nice and big, and under RulerA's leadership it throws its weight around and bullies other nations. RulerA's alliance becomes a pariah, but too costly for its victims to deal with. RulerA then leaves and forms Alliance2. Alliance1 has ... well, who cares, it doesn't matter who takes it over. Things change a little, and Alliance1's former victims have a few grudges they'd like to discuss over the 'Launch Nuclear Missile' button. Traditionally, Alliance1 ends up a wasteland as a result. What about RulerA, who's still in the game? Shouldn't he inherit his own sins? Edit: And the 'self-pity' was actually more 'getting over it'. Or is that acceptable behaviour? Edited July 25, 2009 by Qaianna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 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. Well, I guess we'll see how accurate your guess is sometime in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 turned tables, what are you talking about? Did they not fight them in the BAPS war. I was referring more to this general attitude than BAPS in particular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well, I guess we'll see how accurate your guess is sometime in the future. 50 tech says Im rite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King MyLife Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Too much.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I was referring more to this general attitude than BAPS in particular. my apology then, while I do not like it applied to TPF, I do agree with you. It's nice to see the tables turned even if it will only last a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) 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. Hey mhawk, glad you showed up. Bama ducked out when the questioning got too rough. Maybe you can field this post. While that's certainly not the only mark on TPF's record, let's use that one as an example. By your own admission, TPF was less than "fair" in that instance. Has TPF since then taken to apologizing for their part in this wrong doing? Has the hand of friendship been offered in the knowledge of past wrongdoing? Such wounds cannot be expected to heal themselves so what I'm basically saying is that if TPF has done nothing to remedy the reasonable disdain they have created then TPF deserves to reap what they have sown. So given that TPF has not been fair, why should they be treated fairly (by your definition mind you, not mine. These terms seem mighty lenient to me)? Any comments? Edited July 25, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'll clarify, and make up some names to help avoid the inevitable debate about whether events actually happenned.Let's say that RulerA starts Alliance1. It grows nice and big, and under RulerA's leadership it throws its weight around and bullies other nations. RulerA's alliance becomes a pariah, but too costly for its victims to deal with. RulerA then leaves and forms Alliance2. Alliance1 has ... well, who cares, it doesn't matter who takes it over. Things change a little, and Alliance1's former victims have a few grudges they'd like to discuss over the 'Launch Nuclear Missile' button. Traditionally, Alliance1 ends up a wasteland as a result. What about RulerA, who's still in the game? Shouldn't he inherit his own sins? Edit: And the 'self-pity' was actually more 'getting over it'. Or is that acceptable behaviour? RulerA should be held accountable for his actions, yes. How and when that happens would depend on a lot of things. Sometimes RulerA just quits and goes out as a nuke rogue and Alliance1 continues to hang out with the gang that continues to bully people and then gets upset when their chickens come home to roost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 50 tech says Im rite That the rest of the former Continuum alliances get rolled? It is possible but then again anything is possible in an open-ended [ooc]game[/ooc]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I was referring more to this general attitude than BAPS in particular. I put my friends and allies above all others at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 That the rest of the former Continuum alliances get rolled? It is possible but then again anything is possible in an open-ended [ooc]game[/ooc]. Any one of the ones mentioned in the earlier post within the next 6 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) my apology then, while I do not like it applied to TPF, I do agree with you. It's nice to see the tables turned even if it will only last a while I think it applies to TPF more than most actually. This is an alliance (take notice mhawk, you becoming leader does not mean TPF's past actions go away) that has taken spoils quite beyond money and tech. They have reveled in their ability to not only attack and destroy the nations of their enemies, but to call into question their personal integrity IC and OOC. They crossed some real lines and most will agree. When it comes time to pay the piper, why all the complaints? Should they not be called to task for their actions as they have called others to task? But I'll make TPF a deal. Add the following clause into the surrender terms and I think we'll be even. 2. Current members of The Phoenix Federation not are not to form another alliance nor join any WS/WN themed alliances in the future I put my friends and allies above all others at all times. That doesn't make your friend or allies right. Though good on you. Edited July 25, 2009 by Captain Flinders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) 2. Current members of The Phoenix Federation not are not to form another alliance nor join any WS/WN themed alliances in the future What about the past? (Sorry, I just had the silly idea of all the wacky things that could occur if time travel were possible... ) Edited July 25, 2009 by Ragashingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sileath Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Rock on TPF, props for rejecting these ridiculous terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I think it applies to TPF more than most actually. This is an alliance (take notice mhawk, you becoming leader does not mean TPF's past actions go away) that has taken spoils quite beyond money and tech. They have reveled in their ability to not only attack and destroy the nations of their enemies, but to call into question their personal integrity IC and OOC. They crossed some real lines and most will agree. When it comes time to pay the piper, why all the complaints? Should they not be called to task for their actions as they have called others to task? But I'll make TPF a deal. Add the following clause into the surrender terms and I think we'll be even. That doesn't make your friend or allies right. Though good on you. And I am sure your probably right on the matter, my history does not invovle the TPF in a bad light. They have been allies in most every case. While I do not wish to see them suffer, I do admit that in order for the phoenix to rise above their past, this war was was needed, as for the rest of it, TPF is and always will be friend, that and it's 4am and I was looking for intertainment Edited July 25, 2009 by Dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatmagnus Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Rock on TPF, props for rejecting these ridiculous terms. You can't really give props to your own alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Rock on TPF, props for rejecting these ridiculous terms. Agreed, I had heard PC were holding the whole thing up and now I know why. $$$ Edited July 25, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 What about the past? (Sorry, I just had the silly idea of all the wacky things that could occur if time travel were possible... ) Terms can only apply to those eligible to take them and therefore that would be those in TPF as of now. I would assume everyone who left before doesn't actually want to fight for TPF and I don't really blame them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 We won't be in the next great war.First of all, it will happen before our terms expire, and second of all we will be diplomatically isolated and still largely a heap of rubble even a year from now. Our terms will have set a fun precedent that the winning side of the ensuing war will impose on the losing side though. I will make sure the losing side remembers what they said to us. *shrug* Maybe you will be in the next Great War, maybe you won't, my point was that Pacifica takes great care in her grudge-holding and always has, I expect nothing else, and neither do most. Also, if the precedent that your terms set is no more viceroys, no more expelling members from government, and no more secret terms, then that's a damn fine precedent to set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Obviously you don't desire peace that much. If you truly "desired peace", you would do whatever it took. Just be honest. I suspect it extremely unlikely that these posts would've shown up a week ago. Call me jaded; call me cynical; call me a realist. Perhaps NPO's peace should've been drug out until a simultaneous peace could've been made with TPF. Or NPO could've kept their gag order up on their idiots, of whom they're well past quota. (With all due respect, of course.) Look, here's the thing. NPO knew TPF was with them until the end. They can't be shocked that TPF got terms instead of white peace. In fact, if they did think that would make a difference, they should've INSISTED that TPF take terms, or bow out, or whatever. If they kept TPF in the war for no reason beyond their own selfishness, I offer the suggestion that NPO is to blame for TPF's terms. Have fun with that one. Edited July 25, 2009 by Vhalen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Hello, these terms are !@#$%^&*. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shodemofi-NPO Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Hello, these terms are !@#$%^&*. Thanks. Hello, you clearly aren't familiar with previous terms alliances have recieved, and just how lenient these are. Thanks. Also talking like this makes you look like a tool. Just sayin' 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.