TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[watchman]

Raiding tech

Seems to be truth to this.

[BamaBuc]

The ONLY way, and I mean the ONLY way to ensure a NAP is actually a valid deterrent to aggression, is to set it for a defined period of time, with no cancellation clauses....such as 90 days.... The leadership of TPF is not moronic, they know this. I find it very highly unlikely that the moronic wording of the article was NOT put their intentionally.

I'm glad we agree that they're not moronic, because you'd have to be an utter moron to try to get out of the treaty that way. There are all kinds of semi-valid escape clauses they could have put in. Maybe something like "if one party attacks an ally of the other, treaty void." But to use "if either party BREAKS the treaty, it's void" as a loophole would be beyond moronic, because you're still admitting you broke the treaty. It doesn't add up. Either TPF gov are utter morons (they're not) or that clause was simply poorly written. It's easy to miss errors in a treaty. True story: The entire time I was TOOL HoFA, I used an MDoAP template that had no NAP clause (though I blame DarkMistress, it was her template first ). But if we'd attacked an MDoAP ally, would it have been okay because there was no NAP clause? Umm, no. Everyone knows that not killing each other is part of an MDP. And everyone knows that not killing each other is the general idea of an NAP. Nobody would buy the excuse that "well, if you look at article III section B paragraph 4 line 8, it actually says..." It's the dumbest possible way to attack an NAP partner. Even just saying "they violated it somehow" would be smarter.

-Bama

[fant0m]

I hope you guys like war! Well, I hope you like hiding in peace mode anyway.

If the boot had been on the other foot I don't think any of us doubt the terms (if any at all) you'd have handed to PC would be ten fold those you have been presented with. Suck up your petty hate for PC and accept the very reasonable terms in front of you.

[ChairmanHal]

Suck up your petty hate for PC and accept the very reasonable terms in front of you.

Congratulations for being the 347th person today to make this assertion.

As your reward, I will taunt you by pointing out that the guy in your avatar is dead.

[BlkAK47_002]

Then word your treaties better. Don't blame everyone else when something like this comes back to bite you. If I worded my treaties poorly and someone used it to their advantage I have no one to blame but myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7p4mioawIA

You sure wouldn't be saying that if you were in his situation. I'd bet on that.

[fant0m]

Congratulations for being the 347th person today to make this assertion.

As your reward, I will taunt you by pointing out that the guy in your avatar is dead.

I think we're all shocked TPF have turned down what are surprisingly lenient terms.

TPF, you forced PC to sign that NAP, while making the wording very vague so that you could break it any time you like. I only wish Hoo had log dumped so we could all see how full of BS TPF really are.

[BlkAK47_002]

I'm glad we agree that they're not moronic, because you'd have to be an utter moron to try to get out of the treaty that way. There are all kinds of semi-valid escape clauses they could have put in. Maybe something like "if one party attacks an ally of the other, treaty void." But to use "if either party BREAKS the treaty, it's void" as a loophole would be beyond moronic, because you're still admitting you broke the treaty. It doesn't add up. Either TPF gov are utter morons (they're not) or that clause was simply poorly written. It's easy to miss errors in a treaty. True story: The entire time I was TOOL HoFA, I used an MDoAP template that had no NAP clause (though I blame DarkMistress, it was her template first ). But if we'd attacked an MDoAP ally, would it have been okay because there was no NAP clause? Umm, no. Everyone knows that not killing each other is part of an MDP. And everyone knows that not killing each other is the general idea of an NAP. Nobody would buy the excuse that "well, if you look at article III section B paragraph 4 line 8, it actually says..." It's the dumbest possible way to attack an NAP partner. Even just saying "they violated it somehow" would be smarter.

-Bama

Bama, as much as I support TPF's position on this, I think there's no point in arguing this futher. The overwhelming majority are in favor of this hypocritic, phony "Karma" movement so no matter how much your arguments make sense, are for a just cause, or are reasonable, they will be battled at every turn by Karma's followers. No matter what you say your words will be twisted up and thrown back at you. For now the advice I would give you is to live to fight another day. No matter how unfair it seems to be paying reps to someone who stabbed you in the back. Your alliance has a chance at survival but you must swallow your pride for awhile.

[yinner]

if you ask me it looks like it has all boiled down to simply acrimony against one alliance, damaging the entire peace process. for shame!

[Hydro]

If I understand this correctly, TPF is twisting this so it'll appear as though all alliances still at war with TPF are giong to have their lower nations hit continously because Poison Clan wants reps. Maybe I'm misreading this, but it's an interesting way of attempting to sabotage relations, but I really doubt it'll be profitable. In any case, I look forward to your next few topics that strive to continue your campaigns of washing away the dirt from your membersip in the Coalition of Cowards and demonizing PC.

[WarriorConcept]

Poor wording in the treaty, perhaps. I suppose if you use the old WUT as an example, you have a case.

However, that doesn't make it any less disgusting on PC's part.

Considering that's the only way to cancel the treaty, by breaking it, then yes it actually does.

Do go on ranting however

[Kilkenny]

I think we're all shocked TPF have turned down what are surprisingly lenient terms.

TPF, you forced PC to sign that NAP, while making the wording very vague so that you could break it any time you like. I only wish Hoo had log dumped so we could all see how full of BS TPF really are.

I wish he would have too, then we would have the proof that he didn't know what he was talking about.

Also must add

o/ NoR

o/ KingZog....i knew there was a reason I liked you

Edited July 26, 2009 by Kilkenny

[kingzog]

Knocking the Continuum/1V bloc off their pedestal?

Well, then.

If that's the case, mission accomplished.

White peace all around and let's go home.

[WarriorConcept]

Well, then.

If that's the case, mission accomplished.

White peace all around and let's go home.

mhawk is still hanging on to the top of his cross, gotta get him down first.

[Starcraftmazter]

TPF, just get over it.

And why encapsulate the little bit of truth in the announcement with so much baloney.

[magicninja]

Can I e-lawyer a little?

I can!

Why thank you!

I have to agree with Bama. The treaty say if either party breaks the pact it is null and void.....which would be true even if the sentence wasn't in the treaty to begin with. I guess you're all forgetting that bit. "Breaks" is the key word here. PC did break the treaty. They didn't cancel by legitimate means they just rolled right through it. If you think that line was put in so TPF could come out looking like a rose if they attacked PC with the treaty in place you're wrong. I would still say that TPF "broke" the treaty in that case and would be disappointed in them. So I can see where TPF is coming from in that regard. I don't think it's smart to be honest. i think Slayer woulda paid them off now and found a way to get it back with interest later.

About the California issue I agree that PC shouldn't receive any kind of reps until their own debt is paid. The fact that they haven't even tried to pay shows how their alliance thinks. They figure they'll never have to pay because in reality what can California or TPF do about it? Nothing but if that was their line of thinking they should've never agreed to pay in the first place. It's just looking more and more like PC can;t be trusted to keep their word on anything and that disappoints me quite a bit because while at TPF witht hese guys they seemed like pretty decent people. It seems that lack of restrictions and a few friends went straight to their head.

In any case I hope a compromise is reached and TPF can find themselves a place in post-war Bob.

[WarriorConcept]

Can I e-lawyer a little?

I can!

Why thank you!

I have to agree with Bama. The treaty say if either party breaks the pact it is null and void.....which would be true even if the sentence wasn't in the treaty to begin with. I guess you're all forgetting that bit. "Breaks" is the key word here. PC did break the treaty. They didn't cancel by legitimate means they just rolled right through it. If you think that line was put in so TPF could come out looking like a rose if they attacked PC with the treaty in place you're wrong. I would still say that TPF "broke" the treaty in that case and would be disappointed in them. So I can see where TPF is coming from in that regard. I don't think it's smart to be honest. i think Slayer woulda paid them off now and found a way to get it back with interest later.

About the California issue I agree that PC shouldn't receive any kind of reps until their own debt is paid. The fact that they haven't even tried to pay shows how their alliance thinks. They figure they'll never have to pay because in reality what can California or TPF do about it? Nothing but if that was their line of thinking they should've never agreed to pay in the first place. It's just looking more and more like PC can;t be trusted to keep their word on anything and that disappoints me quite a bit because while at TPF witht hese guys they seemed like pretty decent people. It seems that lack of restrictions and a few friends went straight to their head.

In any case I hope a compromise is reached and TPF can find themselves a place in post-war Bob.

Considering breaking it was part of the pact, it was canceled legally.

[GuMMyWoRm]

Wow a few weeks ago TPF was trying to brainwash everyone into thinking how they were these honorable heros, just to turn into the biggest crybabies ever to lose a war on planet bob. But hey its TPF, it was to be expected.

Edited July 26, 2009 by GuMMyWoRm

[hizzy]

I actually find myself agreeing with TPF's reasons here. E-Lawyering through treaties is just low. I remember when not long ago people were claiming "hey, NPO backstabbed their friends before, they'll do it to you too." And if PC wants to be that guy who e-lawyers his way through a treaty to get an advantage, well... it's one less treaty for me to consider. And I'd be surprised if other treaty partners arn't reading over what they signed a little more carefully.

I can't blame TPF for not wanting to reward that sort of behaviour. Hell, resisting that might be the best thing they ever did. People around here love taking stupid !@#$ as precedence to do more stupid !@#$, so maybe they're doing everyone a favour, even? Time will tell.

[kingzog]

I actually find myself agreeing with TPF's reasons here. E-Lawyering through treaties is just low. I remember when not long ago people were claiming "hey, NPO backstabbed their friends before, they'll do it to you too." And if PC wants to be that guy who e-lawyers his way through a treaty to get an advantage, well... it's one less treaty for me to consider. And I'd be surprised if other treaty partners arn't reading over what they signed a little more carefully.

I can't blame TPF for not wanting to reward that sort of behaviour. Hell, resisting that might be the best thing they ever did. People around here love taking stupid !@#$ as precedence to do more stupid !@#$, so maybe they're doing everyone a favour, even? Time will tell.

Have I told you lately that I love you?

Oh wait....I have.

Carry on.

[nutkase]

Wow a few weeks ago TPF was trying to brainwash everyone into thinking how they were these honorable heros, just to turn into the biggest crybabies ever to lose a war on planet bob. But hey its TPF, it was to be expected.

Get over yourself, TPF continue this war based on the hatred of PC not the terms of the surrender. But I guess you didnt read the OP

Edited July 26, 2009 by nutkase

[Tygaland]

Well, then.

If that's the case, mission accomplished.

White peace all around and let's go home.

Those who did not give white peace to far smaller alliances that really did only defend their allies in a defensive war are not deserving of white peace. The Continuum is only truly knocked off its pedestal when all of the alliances involved have taken their medicine. TPF is the last one to have to do so.

I didn't see white peace all around when Polar got knocked down a peg or ten so why you expect special treatment for TPF is beyond me. Well, not really, I guess.

[heggo]

The entire discussion of treaties and e-lawyering misses the more fundamental issue, I think. An undue faith was placed in a bloated treaty system, a system in which many treaties were created without having any fundamental basis to be grounded in at all. That an already vacuous treaty was brushed aside should come as little surprise to anyone.

[The Crimson King]

Considering breaking it was part of the pact, it was canceled legally.

Well this should be consoling to anyone looking to hold a treaty with PC. Fear not good citizens of Bob, while PC make break the treaty at a moments notice, you can at least feel reassured in knowing they will do everything in their power to do it "legally".

[WarriorConcept]

I actually find myself agreeing with TPF's reasons here. E-Lawyering through treaties is just low. I remember when not long ago people were claiming "hey, NPO backstabbed their friends before, they'll do it to you too." And if PC wants to be that guy who e-lawyers his way through a treaty to get an advantage, well... it's one less treaty for me to consider. And I'd be surprised if other treaty partners arn't reading over what they signed a little more carefully.

I can't blame TPF for not wanting to reward that sort of behaviour. Hell, resisting that might be the best thing they ever did. People around here love taking stupid !@#$ as precedence to do more stupid !@#$, so maybe they're doing everyone a favour, even? Time will tell.

I think we all can see where TPF is coming from, PC did e-lawyer it and we may have differing opinions on it being legal or not, but the fact of the matter is that TPF would rather submit itself to keep fighting indefinitely instead of finally ending this war and focusing on the future and new political moves. More power to them for sticking to their principle, but ultimately sometimes you just have to suck it up for the good of your members.

[nutkase]

I think we all can see where TPF is coming from, PC did e-lawyer it and we may have differing opinions on it being legal or not, but the fact of the matter is that TPF would rather submit itself to keep fighting indefinitely instead of finally ending this war and focusing on the future and new political moves. More power to them for sticking to their principle, but ultimately sometimes you just have to suck it up for the good of your members.

What if though it was the choice of the members to continue?