TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Tygaland]

All this 'dictating terms' talk makes me laugh. Alliances that won a war can demand whatever terms they like. That is an indisputable fact. The alliance on the receiving end can also reject those terms for whatever reasons they like. That is an indisputable fact too. If TPF don't want to hand over most of what little they have left to the likes of PC, then they have every right to say no. You can attempt to shove them down mhawk's throat much as you like, but unless he feels right about accepting the terms for his alliance, it won't happen. Didn't most of this get argued in the umpteen NPO terms threads over the first set offered us? Seems it still hasn't sunk in with a lot of you.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

For those of you who feel harsh terms are necessary for 'punishment', that has already happened. Take a close look at the state TPF is in right now. Isn't that punishment enough for any past 'crimes'? All you are doing, and I include all the alliances that have dished out harsh terms to Echelon, NPO, and the TPF attempt, are doing is fostering a growing hatred of and anger towards your alliances from members of those defeated alliances. Even moderates such as myself. Is that what karma set out to achieve? If so, congratulations, you did it.

Yet your alliance and allies happily clawed reps out of smaller alliances as badly beaten down who had committed no crimes at all. I find it humourous everytime a Pacifican tries to play this card.

I want to see TPF at peace. They have fought hard and my admiration for their support and tenacity is sky high. However, for that to happen, seems PC need to reign in their greed. Unless that happens, I can't see why TPF should accept terms they feel are unacceptable.

Then they are resigning themselves to a continued war over pride. Their choice.

[BamaBuc]

Considering the circumstances under which it was was signed, probably not. Don't get me wrong, I still dislike that they just tore up the treaty like that, but really that's all the fault of your FA department. The wording and the fact that you signed it with them in the first place.

Their FA department apparently didn't find that flaw either. Despite the circumstances of that treaty's signing (which I admittedly do not have all the details of), I'm sure they could have at least pointed it out.

This does bring up an interesting point. From what I've been able to gather, this NAP was part of pre-emptive surrender terms. I think most people here believe that surrender terms should be honored by both sides. I'm sure you'd disagree if a bunch of former Hegemony alliances came to TPF's aid in violation of their own non-aggression terms. So why is it semi-acceptable for PC to break that treaty because it was part of surrender terms?

-Bama

[Schattenmann]

<OBM[TPF]> You've not graced my opus, I am saddened.

Sadly, I didn't think that I have anything new or nice to say about it, so in one of the most rare occurrences on Planet Bob Schattenmann exercised self-restraint and walked away.

But since you asked

Your response has about 5 heads, and anything with more than one head is a monster. There are very cool froods in TPF--people like you and deathcat--but TPF has dedicated its existence, and I mean its entire existence whether you're talking about before or after mhawk, to making other alliances miserable, terrified, or dead. We can talk about how much leeway mhawk gave PC or how different he was from Slayer88*, but at the end of the day the backchannels of Bob are crusty with the man-residue of mhawk's world-famous self-stroking interrogation sessions. Sessions like the one that resulted in this very war. The cool froods in TPF that are otherwise nice guys supported mhawk and TPF's ways until the very eve of the war when you and other old-guard members led the membership revolt, but that was too late.

Now because of every reason that people hate TPF, you are in a war with everyone that hates you with or without reason. Deathrow inmates only get two decisions: Method of execution, and last meal. But TPF refuses to accept the completeness of their defeat, and so while the reps to PC may make absolutely no difference in terms of their physical value, TPF's refusal to accept the terms they've been given shows a refusal to accept defeat. And if you are allowed to surrender without accepting defeat, then what has the war gained? There is no victor, no lesson.

Just as I deleted [OOC]forum abuse reports against Q members[/OOC] on command from Slayer88, took on a Viceroy from a protector, and became the bad guy to 30+ people as the face of the Phoenix occupation because I was leashed and defeated; Just as Atlantis disbanded; Just as BAPS and TDSM8 surrendered, TPF must lower its head, do what it hates because it is what must be done, and--if they will--keep the burning ember of that hateful action somewhere close and useful.

There's no revenge in peacemode or permawar. Bite the bullet and once again go from war with no good PR available to you, and show us what you can do again.

*Not a typo.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Schattenmann

[kingzog]

I know who you are and what you are doing.

Then please enlighten me, because my intent is to express an honestly-held opinion. There's no secret agenda here.

Just because TPF has to pay some reps with outside assistance does not make those enforcing those terms "reminiscent of those charming fellows on red".

I didn't say that. What I did say is that the rationale some are using reminds me of the NPO's responses after, say, the war against GATO. (To use one example.) To be fair, it's the rank-and-file 'talking smack' for the most part, so I should probably just ignore that.

For the record, I think PC are being greedy. But, at the end of th day TPF have a pretty easy out of a war their side started and I think it is in their best interests to accept the terms and rebuild. I fail to see how that opinion makes me "as bad as the NPO" but each to their own, I guess.

See above.

Were I in their position, I would likely support paying the reps and just moving on for the sake of getting the damn thing settled. But I do understand why they feel the way they do, and I see some merit in their argument.

[WarriorConcept]

The reasons for the signing of that treaty have been discussed ad nauseum in this and many other threads. If you really feel the need to go back down that road I am sure we can spend the next 12 pages discussing and rehashing both sides of that argument again.

The reasons why the treaty was signed however is not relevant to the topic at hand. THe conversation you replied to, and the one I referenced in my original response was pertaining to whether or not PC actually "broke" the treaty. Your responded that it was done legally. Now since everyone seems determined to break this down to lowest possible semantic denominator possible, and going off exactly what you said in your last two posts it breaks down something like this.

The only way to cancel the treaty is to break it.

By your own admission PC "canceled legally"

SO we are left with one of two possibilities here. Either A) you are saying that PC broke the treaty, or B.) you are saying that PC didn't break the treaty, which means we are all living in bizarroworld where 1+1 does not equal 3. For the sake of the rest of this argument I will assume the former.

SO now we have Fact A: PC broke a standing treaty to enter the war.

THen this brings us to the other half of the argument that again has been discussed throughout this thread, that being the attack and subsequent agreement on reps payable to California.

ON this topic we are left with a few facts as well

A) PC did attack California.

B.) PC agreed to pay reps in the amt of $120 mil to California for these attacks.

C) As of this point in time PC has not paid a dime in these reps

D) PC stacked said payable reps to California on top of the reps they already wanted from TPF.

So I would think the more pertinent question at hand given the facts that, by your own admission, PC "broke" a standing treaty, and on top of that have not honored their agreement to repay reps to Calif, and lumped said reps on top of the payable reps to TPF is why are all the members of MK out here showing staunch support of PC and these actions?

Edit. B.) does not equal B)

Considering the only way you legally tied yourself and them to cancel the treaty, is by in fact breaking it, I don't see why you persist that they had any other way to attack you. If there was a cancellation clause or anything like that and PC attacked your during it, then you'd have even more support for your argument but the fact of the matter is your FA dept dropped the ball and you suffered the consequences.

On the california matter I don't really see how it's relevant, although I think everyone agrees it was a terrible thing for PC to do. That's their own business.

[Waterana]

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Maybe if it gets said often enough, the drones on your side of the fence may actually let it sink into their brains, but I won't hold my breath.

Yet your alliance and allies happily clawed reps out of smaller alliances as badly beaten down who had committed no crimes at all. I find it humourous everytime a Pacifican tries to play this card.

[sarcasm]Love how every war we fought was against innocent little lambs who had never done a thing to hurt us. No CB from Q or 1V was ever valid.[/sarcasm]

From what I've read in this thread, PC, who want the lions share of these reps, bandwagoned against TPF out of pure hate and a want for vengeance. If that reason is valid for them to attempt to extort the major portion of reps from TPF, then what reps did we ever demand, or TPF for that matter as this is about them, were so much worse?

Then they are resigning themselves to a continued war over pride. Their choice.

Funny, NPO were told that too. Over and over again. We're at peace now though, wonder why?

[RandomInterrupt]

Are folks seriously arguing about a broken NAP? This is... beyond absurd. It's an NAP. The damned things are meant to be broken. I am sure most people can name more broken NAPs then non-broken ones. They are joke treaties who are only signed by fools. Anyone who actually signs an NAP and actually thinks it will prevent war against them are big dumb idiots who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions regarding their alliances future.

Arguing about a broken NAP is like arguing what came first, the chicken or the egg. It has no meaning save to waste time and distract people from the things that matter. Like the fact that TPF acted like jerks for years and are now crying big whiny baby tears because their terms were half as bad as what they dished out.

[WarriorConcept]

Their FA department apparently didn't find that flaw either. Despite the circumstances of that treaty's signing (which I admittedly do not have all the details of), I'm sure they could have at least pointed it out.

This does bring up an interesting point. From what I've been able to gather, this NAP was part of pre-emptive surrender terms. I think most people here believe that surrender terms should be honored by both sides. I'm sure you'd disagree if a bunch of former Hegemony alliances came to TPF's aid in violation of their own non-aggression terms. So why is it semi-acceptable for PC to break that treaty because it was part of surrender terms?

-Bama

Well yeah it is their fault, and if they complained about it they would've gotten the same treatment about it from me, it was ignorance on both your parts.

I don't know of anything relating to how this NAP is related to a pre-emptive surrender term, but the terms that former hegemony allies signed are well worded and will be met in full force I'm sure if they're broken.

[Schattenmann]

Funny, NPO were told that too. Over and over again. We're at peace now though, wonder why?

Because someone from an alliance with a lot of nukes decided to intervene on NPO's behalf. I wouldn't be so sure of that happening for TPF; the reps on the table aren't outrageous, and there's no OWF pity-party for TPF.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Schattenmann

[Tygaland]

Then please enlighten me, because my intent is to express an honestly-held opinion. There's no secret agenda here.

As per below, your honestly held opinion is based on cherry-picking comments from the usual idiots and smearing everyone with them. I realise that the "you are as bad as the NPO" is quite a powerful argument but it'd carry more weight if it weren't applied to situations where it is clearly untrue. It is a tried and true dogwhistle tactic now.

I didn't say that. What I did say is that the rationale some are using reminds me of the NPO's responses after, say, the war against GATO. (To use one example.) To be fair, it's the rank-and-file 'talking smack' for the most part, so I should probably just ignore that.

You should, yes. If TPF got the same terms GATO did, I'd join you in complaining about them. They didn't, however so I won't.

See above.

Were I in their position, I would likely support paying the reps and just moving on for the sake of getting the damn thing settled. But I do understand why they feel the way they do, and I see some merit in their argument.

Most people do see that and have said as much. But most people are of the belief that the terms are good enough to accept rather than condemn your alliance to more war. Each to their own as I said. People staing they believe the terms should be accepted and that TPF do so and move on are not supporting PC or anything they have done. They have made an assessment of what they consider to be in TPF's best interest under the circumstances.

[Essenia]

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 have to agree with this. Though I don't care much for TPF, it's obvious that PC violated the treaty and no amount of fudging or blaming TPF for the wording can change that.

[BamaBuc]

Well yeah it is their fault, and if they complained about it they would've gotten the same treatment about it from me, it was ignorance on both your parts.

I don't know of anything relating to how this NAP is related to a pre-emptive surrender term, but the terms that former hegemony allies signed are well worded and will be met in full force I'm sure if they're broken.

You keep referring to "the circumstances under which it was signed" as a reason that breaking it was semi-acceptable. From that and what others have said, it sounded to me as though it was pushed on them as a term to avoid war. I'd like to hear Mhawk's side though. However, my point is that it's generally considered dishonorable to break terms, even if they were "forced" on you. So how is it somewhat okay for PC to do it?

-Bama

[Schattenmann]

I have to agree with this. Though I don't care much for TPF, it's obvious that PC violated the treaty and no amount of fudging or blaming TPF for the wording can change that.

Anyone that knows anything about the circumstances of the treaty or TPF-PC relations is not batting an eye.

[Tygaland]

Maybe if it gets said often enough, the drones on your side of the fence may actually let it sink into their brains, but I won't hold my breath.

Everyone already knows this. It seems you are the only one unaware this is common knowledge and commonsense.

[sarcasm]Love how every war we fought was against innocent little lambs who had never done a thing to hurt us. No CB from Q or 1V was ever valid.[/sarcasm]

Ah, the "all or nothing" indignant response. NPO and allies have clawed reps from well-beaten, smaller alliances who had commited no crime other than defending an ally in a defensive war in the past. I never said every war or every set of terms were like that, but they have done it readily in the past so your moralising now is ironic to say the least.

From what I've read in this thread, PC, who want the lions share of these reps, bandwagoned against TPF out of pure hate and a want for vengeance. If that reason is valid for them to attempt to extort the major portion of reps from TPF, then what reps did we ever demand, or TPF for that matter as this is about them, were so much worse?

PC, if they did bandwagon, are not the first and will not be the last alliance to bandwagon and then claim reps.

Funny, NPO were told that too. Over and over again. We're at peace now though, wonder why?

I don't see any terms like the 2 weeks of war that were in your initial terms in the TPF terms. Perhaps that is why.

[BamaBuc]

Anyone that knows anything about the circumstances of the treaty or TPF-PC relations is not batting an eye.

Please fill us in.

I remember during the TOOL-Athens drama you criticized TOOL because if they had defended Menotah they would have been attacking a Karma alliance, which their terms said they couldn't do. So even if that NAP was pushed on PC as some sort of terms, why is is acceptable for them to break it?

-Bama

[WarriorConcept]

You keep referring to "the circumstances under which it was signed" as a reason that breaking it was semi-acceptable. From that and what others have said, it sounded to me as though it was pushed on them as a term to avoid war. I'd like to hear Mhawk's side though. However, my point is that it's generally considered dishonorable to break terms, even if they were "forced" on you. So how is it somewhat okay for PC to do it?

-Bama

It wouldn't really be an official term at all. Like I keep repeating it's your own fault for signing a treaty that allowed the only way for the treaty to be canceled is by breaking it.

[greatmagnus]

Again, if you are too lazy to read the entire thread. TPF has said they put the clause in for the very purpose PC used it for, PC just used it first.

[Waterana]

Because someone from an alliance with a lot of nukes decided to intervene on NPO's behalf. I wouldn't be so sure of that happening for TPF; the reps on the table aren't outrageous, and there's no OWF pity-party for TPF.

Which alliance was that. Not beings snide here, this is the first I've heard of anyone standing up for us, and I'd like to know who it was.

Tyga, please change the record. That one you're playing has been worn out by a lot of karma people, and got boring in our threads, without replaying it in TPF's as well. We, as in all core Q alliances, have had our 'crimes' thrown at us from day 1. This war was the 'punishment' for it apparently. Though from what I've seen both the war itself and the reps have much more to do with hate than justice. The reps PC expects from TPF just strengthen that.

Edited to correct spelling of someone's name.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Waterana

[ChairmanHal]

Kingzog just did advocate white peace. I'm no fan of rewarding PC either but at the end of the day, TPF gain more by accepting the terms and getting on with rebuilding. STA benefited from that last year with Valhalla being our PC.

Plenty of alliances have benefitted from treaty gymnastics in the past and I doubt TPF resigning themselves to eternal war will prevent it happening in future.

Yeah, let's look at those terms again...

STA hereby agrees to surrender to the alliances listed below and under these terms,

1. STA Decom's all military (tanks, CMs, AF, NAVY) soldiers at 30% or less for 150 days. STA is allowed 40 nukes for the purposes of rogue defense, etc. during this time.

2. STA Destroys all Hidden Silo's they may have and agrees to not purchase any further military wonders for the duration of terms.

3. STA Destroys all military improvements (sats, md's, Barracks, G-camps) for 150 days. STA nations are limited to 3 Intel agency each for 150 days. Sats and MDs required for SDIs are allowed.

4. STA cancels all ODP and higher treaties and cannot sign new treaties with any military clauses for 150 days.

5. STA pays the Alliances at war with them $250 million and 12,000 tech total. (it will be split accordingly amongst all). Valhalla will buy 3,000 tech(which is included in the 12k amount) from STA at a rate of $3 million per 100 tech.

6. STA and the Coalition alliances will stay respectful on the OWF at all times.

7. For the duration of the 150 days, STA will be under the military protection of the Coalition.

8. If a member violates a term and STA doesn't fix it within a timely manner of being alerted to the infraction, the transgressor is ejected. A pattern of alliance-wide violations will be met with military action if not addressed in a timely manner.

9. If payments go past 150 days then STA remains under coalition protection until said time as they do and terms will end 1 week past last payment date

10. No inter alliance aid will be allowed until terms end. The exception to this is that STA may do tech deals with and only with the alliances listed below at $3 mil per 100 tech(How many and with what quantity it solely upto the discretion of STA).

Where exactly did Valhalla get "reps"? I see a clause about selling tech at standard rates, but...explain if you would how that works?

Mind you, these are IMHO, harsh terms but Valhalla = PC? Really?

[BamaBuc]

It wouldn't really be an official term at all. Like I keep repeating it's your own fault for signing a treaty that allowed the only way for the treaty to be canceled is by breaking it.

The only way for NPO to get out of the term preventing them from reenacting the Moldavi Doctrine is for them to break it. Would you say "Oh well, that's the fault of those they fought" if they brought it back down the road?

Also remember that PC wasn't obliged to attack us.

-Bama

[Tygaland]

Yeah, let's look at those terms again...

Where exactly did Valhalla get "reps"? I see a clause about selling tech at standard rates, but...explain if you would how that works?

Mind you, these are IMHO, harsh terms but Valhalla = PC? Really?

You think we wanted to sell tech to Valhalla? I'd much prefer we sold it internally but we were forced to sell it to Valhalla. And I'll add the Valhalla reps as tech deals was a late change to those terms due to public pressure. Ignoring the fact Valhalla along with GGA started the war in the first place and STA's crime was defending the NpO. If selling tech were a choice, you'd have a point. But it wasn't.

The Valhalla = PC is being forced to surrender to and sell tech to an alliance we despise and who weeks earlier was intent on decimating our government and/or condemning our alliance to eternal war.

[Schattenmann]

Please fill us in.

I remember during the TOOL-Athens drama

I'm glad because that was only like 4 days ago.

you criticized TOOL because if they had defended Menotah they would have been attacking a Karma alliance, which their terms said they couldn't do. So even if that NAP was pushed on PC as some sort of terms, why is is acceptable for them to break it?

-Bama

I criticized TOOL for defending Menotah's (alleged) aggressive act of war against Athens, it was jsut one more sprinkle on the crap sundae that they'd be at war with Karma again.

Treaties show a relationship between two alliances, but the NAP in question was forced where there was no relationship. It wasn't like an amount of money that PC could be done with eventually, or a period of no factories. Surrender terms are enforced by the victor, once the victor can no longer enforce them, they are automatically voided by reality. For example, what's NPO gonna do about it if Chris Kaos joins GATO tomorrow in violation of their almost-3 year old terms? Nothing. Why? Because that's all they can do.

When TPF forced this grin-and-bear-it treaty on PC, they knew that it was good only for as long as they could enforce it, unfortunately, they overestimated how long and under what circumstances that would be.

[NoFish]

Why would anyone expect an alliance to uphold a treaty they were forced to sign at gunpoint anyway. If we are going to talk of principles then forcing any treaty on an alliance under threat of death is not really the act of an alliance of honour either.

God, I've been waiting this whole thread for someone to say this. <3

[WarriorConcept]

The only way for NPO to get out of the term preventing them from reenacting the Moldavi Doctrine is for them to break it. Would you say "Oh well, that's the fault of those they fought" if they brought it back down the road?

Also remember that PC wasn't obliged to attack us.

-Bama

No, the terms were written well so the consequences in those terms stipulate that they'll be attacked because of it.

[The Crimson King]

Considering the only way you legally tied yourself and them to cancel the treaty, is by in fact breaking it, I don't see why you persist that they had any other way to attack you. If there was a cancellation clause or anything like that and PC attacked your during it, then you'd have even more support for your argument but the fact of the matter is your FA dept dropped the ball and you suffered the consequences.

On the california matter I don't really see how it's relevant, although I think everyone agrees it was a terrible thing for PC to do. That's their own business.

To address the first half of your post:

I don't think anyone is out here putting forth the claim that this was a "well crafted" treaty. MY point was that the multitude of e-lawyers are trying to break this down as far as possible. IF that is the the route one wishes to take then there is no way you cannot come to the conclusion that PC "broke" the treaty. While I am not personally a fan of the e-lawyer to death technique or arguments based in semantics it seems to be the way everyone wishes to attack this topic.

As to the second half of your statement it is extremely relevant to the question I asked you in my previous post. Guilt by association has been a central theme running through this war. While this has been used on many levels, I will keep this portion of my response focused to the matter at hand, that being reps. There have been a multitude of instances in which current or former members of the Hegemony have attempted to use the argument of "Yeah we signed those terms, but we didn't take any (or only a small portion) of the reps involved in them". Almost universally the Karmic response to this has been(and I paraphrase) "By signing off on the terms you are saying that you are in agreement with the terms and the actions taken by your compatriots in that war, regardless of what percentage of the reps are appropriated to you" So this is why it is relevant, and not just "their own business" because they are bringing the reps payable to Cali into the peace terms YOU are signing. If we are to apply the same argument and line of logic used in debunking any claims of innocence throughout this war to the current situation, by agreeing to these terms you are basically saying that you agree to PC's actions and are in support of them.