TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Alterego]

how long have you been playing CN, my friend?

Its my first day

[SunnyInc]

You guys have shown nothing but class through the course of this war and I hope everything works out for you eventually!

[mushi]

Ive never seen an alliance say you can attack our ally in this war when your reps are paid before a surrender. If I was PC I wouldnt be too happy about it, I would have concerns about what kind of future awaits me as a member of PC and who is going to do what to me after the war if this is how they (MK) act during the war.

Really? so TPF is gonna get its allies and pile on PC? Like that didnt happen this war (most PC nations fought 4-6 wars at a time in the first 2 weeks of war, there drop in NS).Were not worried we have been threw thick and thin. We have been politically isolated. Nothing new, so we aren't really worried.

[Alterego]

Really? so TPF is gonna get its allies and pile on PC? Like that didnt happen this war (most PC nations fought 4-6 wars at a time in the first 2 weeks of war, there drop in NS).Were not worried we have been threw thick and thin. We have been politically isolated. Nothing new, so we aren't really worried.

I hope you are right, I would hate to see any alliance betrayed by a war ally once the fighting ended and they outlived their "usefulness". Good luck PC

[Tygaland]

Ive never seen an alliance say you can attack our ally in this war when your reps are paid before a surrender. If I was PC I wouldnt be too happy about it, I would have concerns about what kind of future awaits me as a member of PC and who is going to do what to me after the war if this is how they (MK) act during the war.

Freedom to run your foreign and internal affairs as you see fit means you can declare war on whoever you like. It does not absolve you from the consequences of that action, however.

If TPF accept terms, pay the reps on time and then are released from terms then they can attack Poison Clan, that is what freedom to conduct foreign affairs as you see fit means. Do MK want that to happen? I doubt it, but TPF could do it as they are free from terms or restrictions.

They did not give permission (as if their permission would be sought or given anyway) for TPF to attack PC after terms expire, they said that TPF were free to do so by way of being released from terms and able to conduct their business as they see fit.

Now, I know you are well aware of this, but I just needed to spell it out so you can move onto your next asinine argument.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Tygaland

[Scorponok]

All the best, I guess. If its what you desire then so be it.

[Alterego]

They did not give permission (as if their permission would be sought or given anyway) for TPF to attack PC after terms expire, they said that TPF were free to do so by way of being released from terms and able to conduct their business as they see fit.

Okay they didnt give permission per se, they are just repeatedly suggesting it as a course of action TPF "could" pursue after the reps have been paid. Its an odd thing to say about your war ally.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Alterego

[Tygaland]

Okay they didnt give permission per se, they are just repeatedly suggesting it as a course of action TPF "could" pursue after the reps have been paid. Its an odd thing to say about your war ally.

No, it is actually a statement of the bleeding obvious.

[Vespassianus]

Here is my issue with paying reps to PC.

We are told these reps are payment for our past "crimes".

Fine, we may very well deserve it.

Then "crimes" from years ago get thrown in our face and people upset about UJP stuff throws that in there too.

You know who was in TPF then? You know who was upper GOV in TPF then. You know who actively participated in these "crimes"?

People like Twisted, Pooks, CTB and many many other Poison Clan members.

Then you say, well they left TPF and got a clean slate. It's the name of the alliance that carries the taint, not the people who are actually in the alliance or running the alliance when said crimes occur.

Fine, if Bob wants to live by this inane standard, so be it. But to me that'd be like Moo and the IO's leaving NPO and forming a new alliance tomorrow and getting a clean slate out of it. I doubt many on here who support PC now would support that.

Then we get things like NoV thrown in our face from Flinders, things like the rolling of Polaris thrown in our face from MK and STA members.

Fine, we deserve that too.

But you know who also marched on NoV and Polaris allies in the "noCB war"'?

Poison Clan.

They committed every "crime" TPF gets blamed for while members of TPF, often as GOV or they marched on the same side as TPF right up until just after Polaris got rolled.

Look at the PC wiki page. Look at who's side they marched on for their entire existance up to this war. A hint, it rhymes with Bontinuum.

Then via a very sketchy route they use one war declared against us by one alliance to break the NAP and declare on us via an oA clause with that alliance.

Then they raid our protectorate, promise them reps, still paying nothing weeks and weeks later.

Finally, after 3 months of this war, we are expected to pay them more reps than all the other alliances fighting us combined?

That is my problem. We are expected to pay for our "crimes" to the very criminals who helped in commiting nearly every one of those "crimes".

This guy says something. PC guys are not so innocents.

TPF fought well, show some respect to their honor and casualities by good peace terms.

[Alterego]

No, it is actually a statement of the bleeding obvious.

Its also a slap in the face to PC.

[Tygaland]

Its also a slap in the face to PC.

lol

Stating the bleeding obvious is not a slap in the face to anyone. It is just the bleeding obvious.

[delendum]

Its also a slap in the face to PC.

You are a slap in the face of logic.

[Alterego]

lol

Stating the bleeding obvious is not a slap in the face to anyone. It is just the bleeding obvious.

The repeated suggestions by MK that TPF get their revenge on PC after the war while PC are fighting with MK against TPF isn't a slap in the face to PC? My mistake, personally I would be furious at the repeated suggestions but I'm not as sophisticated as STA or MK.

[Tygaland]

The repeated suggestions by MK that TPF get their revenge on PC after the war while PC are fighting with MK against TPF isn't a slap in the face to PC? My mistake, personally I would be furious at the repeated suggestions but I'm not as sophisticated as STA or MK.

The "repeated suggestions" were merely comments that if TPF want to pursue PC they can try to do so after their peace terms are up. They did not invite TPF to attack PC nor did they say they wished it to happen. They just pointed out that should TPF wish to, they'd have their chance to do so once their peace terms are over.

No sophistication needed to work that out, just a little commonsense. Then again, you seem more intent on arguing nonsense than actually having anything to contribute to this topic.

[Trigger]

Additionally it was something like no building mp/sdi for 14 days or so, which is how long the term was in effect. Originally it was for 6 months but I decided that would serve no purpose for improving relations so the terms were dropped within the first month.

The hell it was.

[Charles the Great]

I didnt read the whole thread but a few things that jump out at me.............one a post with a graphic CN double standards.....which side you choose........and also someone pointing out the noCB war............. as a member of GoLF and a warden I find any alliance that spits on any treaty repugnant and foul.........I also remember personally routing tech to PC for the noCB war when we rode in due to AZTEC obligations(my point being seems PC changed sides somewhere along with a few others)..........even tho I dont know TPF and historically GoLF and TPF have been on opposing sides......

o/TPF honour until death

I hope you get peace but if you dont good luck...........I dont agree with the way you have treated others but at least you are steadfast in your help of friends and in that I can safely say you are an honourable foe. perhaps when this is over I might stop by.

thank you,

CtG

[King Srqt]

I still call BS on that, because it's the most moronic possible way to get around an NAP.

Regardless of miswordings and stupid clauses, the idea of an NAP is that the alliances not attack each other. I doubt anyone who's saying "who cares about NAPs" or "well it DID say <whatever>" would be doing so if this happened to them. Fact is, we all know what PC's word is worth now.

-Bama

On planet bob intent and spirit of a treaty do not matter, all that matters is how to weasel your way out of your word in a way that is most convenient for you.

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.

By that logic no alliance ever should be expected to uphold a surrender treaty and any alliance that forces a defeated alliance to sign a surrender treaty is dishonorable.

This is getting silly.

PC did not break the treaty in any way; that they canceled it in what was more or less a dick move in your eyes is completely irrelevant.

the clause that they used specifically stated that they had to "break" the treaty in order to cancel it, to use the exact quote CTB used in his DoW

Article 3: Cancellation

If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void.

So if they didn't break the pact I guess they didn't really cancel it? That is some funny logic.

[Shurukian]

Here is my issue with paying reps to PC.

We are told these reps are payment for our past "crimes".

Fine, we may very well deserve it.

Then "crimes" from years ago get thrown in our face and people upset about UJP stuff throws that in there too.

You know who was in TPF then? You know who was upper GOV in TPF then. You know who actively participated in these "crimes"?

People like Twisted, Pooks, CTB and many many other Poison Clan members.

Then you say, well they left TPF and got a clean slate. It's the name of the alliance that carries the taint, not the people who are actually in the alliance or running the alliance when said crimes occur.

Fine, if Bob wants to live by this inane standard, so be it. But to me that'd be like Moo and the IO's leaving NPO and forming a new alliance tomorrow and getting a clean slate out of it. I doubt many on here who support PC now would support that.

Then we get things like NoV thrown in our face from Flinders, things like the rolling of Polaris thrown in our face from MK and STA members.

Fine, we deserve that too.

But you know who also marched on NoV and Polaris allies in the "noCB war"'?

Poison Clan.

They committed every "crime" TPF gets blamed for while members of TPF, often as GOV or they marched on the same side as TPF right up until just after Polaris got rolled.

Look at the PC wiki page. Look at who's side they marched on for their entire existance up to this war. A hint, it rhymes with Bontinuum.

Then via a very sketchy route they use one war declared against us by one alliance to break the NAP and declare on us via an oA clause with that alliance.

Then they raid our protectorate, promise them reps, still paying nothing weeks and weeks later.

Finally, after 3 months of this war, we are expected to pay them more reps than all the other alliances fighting us combined?

That is my problem. We are expected to pay for our "crimes" to the very criminals who helped in commiting nearly every one of those "crimes".

Vol, this has to be one of the best posts in this thread.

I will try to indulge.

This war itself was the result of TPF's past crimes, and it's not only a matter of the things they did while under different leadership, but their continuation of that route.

Uhm, I thought this war was about Ordo Verde and Pacifica, and TPF went in while honoring a treaty. Are you suggesting that this whole war was created and organized by Karma for revenge? How shocking.

The argument that somehow it was a different TPF back then because other people were ruling it can only go so far, TPF was still in the same place, enjoying the same power, doing the same things, with the same friends.

Hmmm, 1.06 million nation strength, ZI, half their treaties gone, and half their protectorates merged or disbanded... Same power, doing the same things, with the same friends. ... how?

In this war, no alliance was hand picked and pummeled into the ground for what they may have done in the past. It was a matter of where everybody found themselves when the war started rolling, and those who still found themselves by NPO's side were obviously still supportive of its actions and everything it stood for at the time it happened.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Didn't you start out this argument with

This war itself was the result of TPF's past crimes

?

So even though leadership might have changed, TPF itself remained the same. Now your arguments with regards to PC having a stained past with stained leaders are moot,

So wait. TPF has different leadership, but they're still the same, since they have to bear the actions of their past leaders. PC has 'stained leaders and a stained past', but they're PC so, eh, it doesn't matter like it does for TPF.

Uhm, what?

PC found themselves on the Karma side, it's as simple as that. Had TPF found themselves in the same place, there wouldn't have been a problem now would there? The fact is PC had changed in what its support and foreign policy is concerned. Tangible change, not just "but we're different now, honest!" talk during the middle of a war. I'm not advocating PC's past innocence, but at the time war started, PC had already been taking a different route for a while - something TPF never even contemplated.

Hm, they reopened talks with Nordreich, and now have a protectorate MDP'd with them. I was around to hear mhawk's frustrations over his talks with PC about peaceful relations, and how paranoid they were that he was trying to do something bad. They've dropped their Valhalla and NPO treaties. Their government is practically all new people, with one or two exceptions. No, that's not change at all.

TPF is expected to pay to the alliances that fought them, and bled while doing it. What PC wants to ask is PC's business, while MK has tried to negotiate and compromise in what overall terms are concerned, and for the most part has been successful, we can not and will not try to impose our will on PC's sovereignty. It is quite simply not up to us. However, the fact that TPF is trying to impose THEIR will on what PC should or shouldn't get is ridiculous. We have made sure the overall reps are fair, and that they are. But it is not for TPF to chose who gets the money.

As it's their surrender terms, I think they have negotiating power. Or is it just that people get to sit around and dictate terms with no concern for the alliance at hand? Do we want that to be the new standard for Planet Bob?

Their perpetual horn blowing in what this is concerned is not only an insult to all the alliances offering the reps, but to all the effort that has gone into trying to compromise, and trying to come up with fair terms. The only reason TPF is still engaged in war is because of their refusal to pay PC. It's not MK's or anyone's problem what TPF feels with regards to PC. Our business extended to making sure the terms were fair, and we have done that. That TPF doesn't want them because of their little grudge for PC is quite simply not our problem.

They can either take them, or leave them.

The feud between PC and TPF should have been taken into account way before this happened. However, I agree with OBM that the way they broke their treaty is not legal. Most MDP's have a clause that says if one alliance goes on unneeded offensive wars, and gets attacked, the MDP is void. So, by your reasoning, one alliance can attack its MDP partner, and because of that clause, it's a legal cancellation. So do treaties really mean nothing these days? And would you all support that alliance when they ask their MDP partner, that THEY attacked, for reps?

I don't think so.

EDIT:: I also don't think I'd accept any terms where I was forced to pay my own protectorate's reps. PC owes California, why would it be a problem to have them pay California first, before TPF would pay their reps to PC? I would see nothing wrong with that setup, and would probably make it more agreeable for PC. However, PC's original reps askings were almost half that. I think it's obvious what's going on with that number. I know Twisted wasn't keen on paying it.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Shurukian

[Kilkenny]

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.

OK, this is too incorrect to let go by while I catch up. At no time has ANY memeber of TPF said this. This is incorrect. We did NOT put that clause in there for teh purposes of attacking. It was a badly written clause is all it was.

[Azaghul]

No, we continued our war until terms that removed and/or banned members of the alliance from government permanently were struck from our peace terms. Once those terms were removed we accepted the remaining peace terms which included an increased amount of reps to compensate for the removed clauses. Seeing as you have no such terms and the ability to have your allies help you pay off reps then your situation is not comparable at all.

This. It's the actual meaning of the line of mine Mhawk has in his sig without any context: "[22:36] <Azaghul[MK]> you need to learn what hard terms are bud". A medium amount of reps do not make terms harsh, hard terms are things like forced government changes and restrictions, wonder decommissioning, viceroys, and the like.

[mushi]

Its also a slap in the face to PC.

orly?

The repeated suggestions by MK that TPF get their revenge on PC after the war while PC are fighting with MK against TPF isn't a slap in the face to PC? My mistake, personally I would be furious at the repeated suggestions but I'm not as sophisticated as STA or MK.

no it isn't. You know PC will be feeling plenty of rogue's when each TPFer decides to quit. You know who he is going to hit? PC. if TPF want revenge they knwo where we are.

I didnt read the whole thread but a few things that jump out at me.............one a post with a graphic CN double standards.....which side you choose........and also someone pointing out the noCB war............. as a member of GoLF and a warden I find any alliance that spits on any treaty repugnant and foul.........I also remember personally routing tech to PC for the noCB war when we rode in due to AZTEC obligations(my point being seems PC changed sides somewhere along with a few others)..........even tho I dont know TPF and historically GoLF and TPF have been on opposing sides......

how much tech was it? 300? 400? somewhere around there. We changed sides? we were politically isolated for months. They canceled on us, not us on them. We activated our MADP with DT and we ended up on this side.. Thats about it.

[Azaghul]

As it's their surrender terms, I think they have negotiating power. Or is it just that people get to sit around and dictate terms with no concern for the alliance at hand? Do we want that to be the new standard for Planet Bob?

New standard? Are you kidding?

It's amazing to me how soon people seem to forget what happened in the past.

[Kahnite]

You are a slap in the face of logic.

LOL! You haven't said one thing in these forums that wasn't at best false, at worst a bald face lie. ... and you want to bring up logic!?!

Thanks for the laugh.

[King Srqt]

New standard? Are you kidding?

It's amazing to me how soon people seem to forget what happened in the past.

Oh good so you admit you are doing the same things you claimed to hate only a few months ago. Nice to know.

[Azaghul]

Oh good so you admit you are doing the same things you claimed to hate only a few months ago. Nice to know.

Uh, no