TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Matthew Conrad]

I was actually surprised that it took this long for a Spartan to come in off of Olympia to pontificate to TPF on how we are to behave in this new world. That Sparta would value political expedience ahead of their values, and tell us to (as many Karmites are) "suck it up" and sell your pride for today's bread, do not remember who TPF is. In the eyes of most of your side of today, TPF did do what you were so quick to point out is the best course, to sell our honor out during the UJP. I don't believe that we did, as I was actually there, but to many that is who TPF is.

That is not who were are. And it is not who we will be. You who are so simple to think this is anything to do with PC specifically are mistaken. We aren't saying it, we are doing it. PC's actions have eclipsed the pale in this war. They willfully broke their bloodmark, they raided our protectorate, agreed to pay reps, and then tacked those reps onto our butcher's bill. You who stand with them are saying that those things don't matter. That might makes right. That TPF just needs to "save itself", like so many who've done it before in the same situation.

It is not a matter of "teaching Planet Bob a lesson", it is about proving, with our actions, that we are who we claim to be, to ourselves. You can take expedience, we'll take what's left of our alliance and defend our most basic principles to the end. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Refusing to reward dishonorable opponents is putting our principles before our own dishonor. We've had enough blackmarks on our name, with too much expedience to ever allow that to continue. TPF doesn't deserve to continue carrying our flag if we stand for this.

OBM

You try and defend your actions during the UJP and yet you completely ignore the accounts of Delta pertaining to the pre-war discussions. We were in even when it looked like we might lose (when some large alliances seemed on the verge of going neutral or possibly with the other side). But of course the most politically expedient thing would be to absolutely stand by your allies when the future looked uncertain. Our principles held true when we stood against unwarranted aggression against our allies. I find it funny that you speak on the topic when you were part of that initial group sniffing for a CB.

What I find most compelling are how many TPF members in the last month have apparently tried to start a meme of mentioning Sparta is every damn thread even remotely concerning us or an ally. You speak as if we ever even bring up TPF except for your own threads wherein very few of us even glance at or post in. Drostan and I are really the only ones who have ever even mentioned you and we're certainly not the first ones to start throwing around off-topic insulting nonsense.

If you want to play the role of martyr, by all means do so. It seems that your membership agrees with your decision so do what you need to since it seems nothing anyone says here will much affect your opinions.

[Finster Baby]

Does anybody else get the impression that TPF really does not like PC?

Naah, I never would have gotten that.

[kulomascovia]

If you want to play the role of martyr, by all means do so. It seems that your membership agrees with your decision so do what you need to since it seems nothing anyone says here will much affect your opinions.

I don't think TPF is trying to be a martyr. I think they're just sticking to their principles.

[Matthew Conrad]

I don't think TPF is trying to be a martyr. I think they're just sticking to their principles.

That's fine if they believe they are sticking by their principles. This is a place for us to debate how each person thinks about those principles since this discussion is directly related. I find it odd that they feel the need to question someone else' principles because a member disagrees with TPF's decisions.

EDIT: typo

Edited July 27, 2009 by Matthew Conrad

[OneBallMan]

You try and defend your actions during the UJP and yet you completely ignore the accounts of Delta pertaining to the pre-war discussions. We were in even when it looked like we might lose (when some large alliances seemed on the verge of going neutral or possibly with the other side). But of course the most politically expedient thing would be to absolutely stand by your allies when the future looked uncertain. Our principles held true when we stood against unwarranted aggression against our allies. I find it funny that you speak on the topic when you were part of that initial group sniffing for a CB.

What I find most compelling are how many TPF members in the last month have apparently tried to start a meme of mentioning Sparta is every damn thread even remotely concerning us or an ally. You speak as if we ever even bring up TPF except for your own threads wherein very few of us even glance at or post in. Drostan and I are really the only ones who have ever even mentioned you and we're certainly not the first ones to start throwing around off-topic insulting nonsense.

If you want to play the role of martyr, by all means do so. It seems that your membership agrees with your decision so do what you need to since it seems nothing anyone says here will much affect your opinions.

How TPF have wronged poor, weak and powerless Sparta. TPF are just such meanies to cuddly and warm Spartahugglebears...

You guys have repeatedly said that you chose to side with Karma because you could no longer stomach the actions of the ruling class. Well, you are the ruling class now. And you're admitted silence in this speaks volumes. You've claimed many times to still be our friends, yet you remain mute here.

[Matthew Conrad]

How TPF have wronged poor, weak and powerless Sparta. TPF are just such meanies to cuddly and warm Spartahugglebears...

You guys have repeatedly said that you chose to side with Karma because you could no longer stomach the actions of the ruling class. Well, you are the ruling class now. And you're admitted silence in this speaks volumes. You've claimed many times to still be our friends, yet you remain mute here.

Look at my previous posts in your last two terms threads. When have I come out and randomly insulted TPF? The only thing I've been discussing is my personal opinion that you should accept the reparations or at least be willing to pay some reps to PC. Before your response to Drostan, I haven't brought up your past, your role in this war, or any of that. I only responded in like to you.

I have repeatedly tried to remain civil with TPF members by taking discussions on IRC, ignoring random/off-topic insults, and avoiding opportunities for cheap shots at you all. This is mainly because I've spoken with some of your members and have found them to be solid individuals. I had hoped the same would be returned by some of your members who had been less than cordial the last few weeks, but perhaps I dream.

[OneBallMan]

Look at my previous posts in your last two terms threads. When have I come out and randomly insulted TPF? The only thing I've been discussing is my personal opinion that you should accept the reparations or at least be willing to pay some reps to PC. Before your response to Drostan, I haven't brought up your past, your role in this war, or any of that. I only responded in like to you.

I have repeatedly tried to remain civil with TPF members by taking discussions on IRC, ignoring random/off-topic insults, and avoiding opportunities for cheap shots at you all. This is mainly because I've spoken with some of your members and have found them to be solid individuals. I had hoped the same would be returned by some of your members who had been less than cordial the last few weeks, but perhaps I dream.

Still, all you talk about is your hurt feelings. Sparta have been wronged here. There is no doubt. Your silence to the core issue should tell everyone where Sparta stands now that she has moved to the peaks.

I think Black is the new Red.

[tenzen]

Rather than make a fuss and complain on the OWF back when TPF "wronged" PC, what did they do? They stayed quiet, accepted what was forced on them, bided their time and then turned the tables.

When PC "wrongs" TPF, rather than suck it up and do something about it they cry to others to fix the problem, as they always have.

There are moral victories, and then there are real victories. TPF prefers the former, PC prefers the latter.

congratulations PC you guys are a better alliance than TPF ever was and can ever hope to be. TPF has always relied too much on others to do their dirty work for them, never carried their own weight.

[Daeryon]

Rather than make a fuss and complain on the OWF back when TPF "wronged" PC, what did they do? They stayed quiet, accepted what was forced on them, bided their time and then turned the tables.

When PC "wrongs" TPF, rather than suck it up and do something about it they cry to others to fix the problem, as they always have.

There are moral victories, and then there are real victories. TPF prefers the former, PC prefers the latter.

congratulations PC you guys are a better alliance than TPF ever was and can ever hope to be. TPF has always relied too much on others to do their dirty work for them, never carried their own weight.

I can tell make believe stories too.

Once upon a time there was a princess named tenzen. This princess was abused like a red headed stepchild.

She was bitter.

The end.

Did you like my fairy tale?

I liked yours.

[Matthew Conrad]

Still, all you talk about is your hurt feelings. Sparta have been wronged here. There is no doubt. Your silence to the core issue should tell everyone where Sparta stands now that she has moved to the peaks.

I think Black is the new Red.

So, from my silence you can deduct a world of conclusions? I had hoped you would be more logical than that but so be it. Also, I don't know why you are taking my word as the stance of Sparta. If our kings want to make an official stance they can do so, but I do not solely represent Sparta's opinion. The core issues: You believe TPF shouldn't pay reps because PC broke/canceled (I really don't care at this point and please spare me any e-lawyering), added on reps from raiding your protectorate, and these actions violate your principles on who you would pay reps to.

1. The dissolution of the NAP is debatable because there is little public evidence of either side allegedly writing the cancellation clause so vaguely on purpose. I personally think PC should have notified TPF unless of course the writer of the treaty intentionally wrote it so that TPF could take advantage of the loophole at a later date.

2. I find the situation with California regrettable. I would hope it wasn't an organized effort by PC to get a rise out of TPF. If so, I do believe that some reps should be sent towards California as they were a third party to the war. However, it should be sent to California rather than be taken off the reps total. It wouldn't matter anyways because if California wanted to help you with reps, they can do so after the surrender.

3. Principles are good because they are often the only absolute that exists. However, there is a time to take a step back and look at what is reasonable instead of quickly jumping to such conclusions. I hope this decision you've made was done so in a well, thought out debate and wasn't a quick reaction. These are reasonable terms and I personally think you should accept them and move on.

EDIT: Really OBM? I had thought you of all people in TPF would avoid the "you're the new ebil NPO!" line.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Matthew Conrad

[kulomascovia]

Rather than make a fuss and complain on the OWF back when TPF "wronged" PC, what did they do? They stayed quiet, accepted what was forced on them, bided their time and then turned the tables.

When PC "wrongs" TPF, rather than suck it up and do something about it they cry to others to fix the problem, as they always have.

There are moral victories, and then there are real victories. TPF prefers the former, PC prefers the latter.

congratulations PC you guys are a better alliance than TPF ever was and can ever hope to be. TPF has always relied too much on others to do their dirty work for them, never carried their own weight.

I don't believe it was TPF who brought the discussions to the public. Also, when else has TPF cried to others to fix the problem? I am not aware of other instances.

Also, I dispute your argument that PC is a better alliances than TPF. PC violated a treaty in order to declare war upon TPF. They did not "turn the tables" as you have said. They simply bandwaggoned upon the many alliances that attacked TPF and then asserted that they deserve reps.

Also, the reason that PC got in trouble in the first place what that they liked tech raiding small alliances. Even now they raided a protectorate of TPF when they clearly knew that TPF couldn't protect them. So, I doubt you can claim that Poison Clan is a better alliance that TPF.

EDIT: Spelling

Edited July 27, 2009 by kulomascovia

[kulomascovia]

1. The dissolution of the NAP is debatable because there is little public evidence of either side allegedly writing the cancellation clause so vaguely on purpose. I personally think PC should have notified TPF unless of course the writer of the treaty intentionally wrote it so that TPF could take advantage of the loophole at a later date.

Err, I believe kingsqrt took care of that issue. There was no loophole. In order to cancel the treaty, you had to do something against its wording. So what PC did was against the wording of the treaty. Here was his response:

The treaty wasn't really badly worded, people are just taking a statement in the treaty and trying to twist it to make it a legal way to cancel the treaty (which by the way it was not).

In order to activate the "clause" in the treaty you first had to violate it, which means that while the treaty was active you had to do something that was against the wording of the treaty. In other words PC did not follow the treaty to the letter and the treaty was only rendered void when PC acted illegally in regards to the pact.

[Matthew Conrad]

Err, I believe kingsqrt took care of that issue. There was no loophole. In order to cancel the treaty, you had to do something against its wording. So what PC did was against the wording of the treaty. Here was his response:

That's his interpretation of the treaty. Seeing as many people have seen it as a loophole, the wording can easily be interpreted as a legal cancellation. Seeing as I've already given my stance on it, I don't find much merit in arguing over the existence of a loophole.

[King Srqt]

That's his interpretation of the treaty. Seeing as many people have seen it as a loophole, the wording can easily be interpreted as a legal cancellation. Seeing as I've already given my stance on it, I don't find much merit in arguing over the existence of a loophole.

do you care to actually give the reason or logic behind that stance or do you just want to spout it out and pretend it is reasonable like everyone else who has taken that stance so far?

OOC: Lot's of people think the earth is flat that does not mean it is true or reasonable.

If you need to break the treaty to cancel it via that clause that means you have to violate the treaty before it is canceled meaning that the violation that caused the cancellation is not legal. Explain to me another way that clause could work.

Edited July 27, 2009 by KingSrqt

[kulomascovia]

That's his interpretation of the treaty. Seeing as many people have seen it as a loophole, the wording can easily be interpreted as a legal cancellation. Seeing as I've already given my stance on it, I don't find much merit in arguing over the existence of a loophole.

I don't think I understand. I can see that many people have seen it as a loophole but what makes kingsqrt's argument invalid?

[Matthew Conrad]

do you care to actually give the reason or logic behind that stance or do you just want to spout it out and pretend it is reasonable like everyone else who has taken that stance so far?

OOC: Lot's of people think the earth is flat that does not mean it is true or reasonable.

If you need to break the treaty to cancel it via that clause that means you have to violate the treaty before it is canceled meaning that the violation that caused the cancellation is not legal. Explain to me another way that clause could work.

A cancellation clause basically activates the exact moment the cancellation "action" occurs. There were two ways to cancel this treaty according to the clause.

1. Inform the other partner and if you do this, you must honor the rest of the treaty for another 10 days.

2. Declaration of war/military aggression. This immediately nulls the entire treaty. The treaty contradicts itself because the cancellation clause opens up the legality of an attack while the other, above terms forbid it. Thus, the next argument in my opinion is whether the aggression allowed by the cancellation clause overrides the above terms of the treaty or not.

Please don't try and accuse me of following the crowd. I have stated things in this thread that haven't been popular so I don't know why you accuse me as such.

I don't think I understand. I can see that many people have seen it as a loophole but what makes kingsqrt's argument invalid?

I never said it was invalid. In fact, I find it quite a reach for you to come up with that conclusion. I said that's his opinion. This is clearly displayed when you disputed my claim of a loophole by pointing to his opinion. Such situations can hardly find a pure middle ground. As the treaty is already worded in a very odd manner, it is entirely up to debate whether the loophole exists.

[Kilkenny]

I don't think I understand. I can see that many people have seen it as a loophole but what makes kingsqrt's argument invalid?

The way someone looks by saying what PC did was ok.

[Matthew Conrad]

The way someone looks by saying what PC did was ok.

Wow are you another one of those who reads the last 2 posts of a thread and starts making baseless assumptions. Here, I'll help you out this time around.

1. The dissolution of the NAP is debatable because there is little public evidence of either side allegedly writing the cancellation clause so vaguely on purpose. I personally think PC should have notified TPF unless of course the writer of the treaty intentionally wrote it so that TPF could take advantage of the loophole at a later date.

Try to actually follow people's posts on the same page next time.

[deth2munkies]

That is true. What if the majority of your membership wanted to fight until the bitter end instead of being humiliated by terms they found insulting? Would you overrule them, sell their pride for them? Or would you pick up your weapon and continue the stand-off until something more reasonable could be agreed upon?

No, ultimately, power comes in the form of people. TPF is still bleeding members, I haven't actually kept track with each individual day, but they have less than half the members they had in their heyday, and they will continue to bleed members until their leaders decide to put aside past grudges and move on. If not, then the inevitable conclusion is that they, themselves will be the only ones remaining in The Phoenix Federation.

Asking "What if" something that didn't happen did is irrelevant.

And where is FAN now?

Federation Of Armed Nations: 142 Members, 93 Active, 65%, Strength 2,392,220 Average: 16,847, Score 9.72

You have no idea what they had to go through and what circumstances had to change for them to get like that. Essentially, every alliance they were at war with had to be destroyed. That means until MK, PC, GR, and all the rest will have to be decisively defeated or at the very least engaged in an even conflict before TPF can begin to rebuild or get lighter terms.

No, people who fight for the last bit of their honor in a losing battle are on death ground when faced with being humiliated in terms. They've already lost, there is nothing keeping them from dragging this out to protect their honor. Be it psychological or material, this is evidently the barrier that holds them cornered. Whether or not you or I think accepting the terms that involve paying PC should just be swallowed is not the point. They say it is something they cannot do, so a wise general accepts that and finds away around it especially if they want a clean victory instead of a bloody standoff. Arguing with them about a point they will not conceed is a waste of time and further entrenches the problem. Unless of course that general just wants to waste more time and blood and ruin their public image.

My whole point is when dealing with people who have their backs against the wall, the easiest way to get them to surrender is not to press forward but to offer them a way out that allows them to retain a degree of dignity.

Showing compassion to a defeated enemy is the epitome of righteousness. Putting way thoughts of humiliating revenge for humbleness in victory is an act that will never be forgotten.

I've heard a member of PC say they have no more hate in their heart for TPF. Members of TPF say they were trying to repair relations. I am willing to believe that there is truth in both of those statements.

If so, now is the time to acknowledge that a new era can be forged from this conflict. PC got their revenge and it cost them dearly. TPF stood by their ally in a time of need until the very end and it cost them dearly. Surely these two proud alliances can now see each other in a new light, put their past behind them, and find a compromise that benefits them all. If this issue is forced it will only create the eventual down fall of the victors at the hands of fanatics thirsty for revenge. If this is worked our properly then the slate can be wiped clean and TPF and PC both step away with their honor intact and perhaps even begin a new era together.

There have been a number of suggestions here that will work if the leaders can agree to make the moves towards reconciliation.

I hope that the leadership of all the alliances can continue to commit themselves towards finding a respectful finish.

The "death ground" scenario from Sun Tzu is supposed to describe how troops can be motivated and used effectively in overwhelming circumstances. This is no longer the case for TPF, they are essentially dead. A large portion of them are at ZI or Peace Mode, both of which have dire economic effects that will wear them down much faster than they could hope to do any sort of real damage to their opponents, especially several of them that are flush with reps from other sides of the conflict. It is essentially if you had an army of people with no limbs on death ground, you still couldn't do much. The only thing TPF can do is wage a war of words, and they have shown themselves to be very limited in that regard, sticking to one or two rather ineffective tactics, whereas FAN and Vox Populi both utilized spy networks and clever, witty OWF critiques and reveals to weaken the power structure. I have my doubts TPF could do the same in their situation.

No matter how adamant their leaders are, they are only a few, and cannot hope to be effectual warriors or leaders as long as they tend towards the current path. The surest way to victory here would be for TPF to take the terms begrudgingly and begin building strategic alliances to one day overcome "the PC menace". But they won't do that, because rejecting terms is extremely short-sighted, impulsive, and overall a bad decision made for the wrong reasons.

[Heft]

This is just getting absurd. Accept the damn terms, let everyone see how petty Poison Clan is, it's not like anyone seriously respects them as it is. But no one really respects TPF either. The "fighting to the death for our treaties" thing was kind of nice, if a bit over the top, but not enough to win this little pissing contest. You've lost, now just get it over with and move on.

[King Srqt]

A cancellation clause basically activates the exact moment the cancellation "action" occurs. There were two ways to cancel this treaty according to the clause.

1. Inform the other partner and if you do this, you must honor the rest of the treaty for another 10 days.

2. Declaration of war/military aggression. This immediately nulls the entire treaty. The treaty contradicts itself because the cancellation clause opens up the legality of an attack while the other, above terms forbid it. Thus, the next argument in my opinion is whether the aggression allowed by the cancellation clause overrides the above terms of the treaty or not.

Please don't try and accuse me of following the crowd. I have stated things in this thread that haven't been popular so I don't know why you accuse me as such.

I'm not accusing you of following the crowd I said that you were stating the same position as many people on this specific point without backing it up, which was true and now that you have laid out an argument it is not (which I commend you for by the way).

now onto your argument, it is a stretch to interpret a sentence that says the treaty is voided if either party breaks the pact as a form of legal cancellation. In fact it is ludicrous as it would make the treaty completely void from the moment it was signed if a clause said that breaking the treaty didn't break the treaty.

But since everyone is so obsessed with the wording why don't we analyze the wording of the clause used, it says that the treaty is considered null and void if it is broken. That is a cause and effect scenario the cause for the cancellation is the breaking of the treaty now how is it that you can initiate the cause (breaking the treaty) without doing something that violates the treaty? if all action taken by PC was legal by the terms of the treaty then the treaty was never actually broken and the effect of the cancellation would have never happened. Right?

[Ying Yang Mafia]

This is just getting absurd. Accept the damn terms, let everyone see how petty Poison Clan is, it's not like anyone seriously respects them as it is. But no one really respects TPF either. The "fighting to the death for our treaties" thing was kind of nice, if a bit over the top, but not enough to win this little pissing contest. You've lost, now just get it over with and move on.

Is acceptance really worth compromising ideals? Alliances can change over time, there are numerous examples of this. I have gained a lot of respect watching TPF stick to its principles despite the beating it has taken and still is taking.

For as long as TPF is willing to hold out they will have the upper hand in terms discussion. The alliances fighting them want this war to be over just as much as they do, since their growth is hindered as well. TPF has made it clear there are aspects of these terms that they will not accept. Interestingly enough, NPO did the same exact thing not to long ago and have since received peace.

[Kzoppistan]

Asking "What if" something that didn't happen did is irrelevant.

Asking "What if" is an essential part of creative problem solving. Besides, the point of it was to place you in the shoes of another person and see it from their perspective. Any good leader should have the ability to do that if they want to make plans for the future.

All that other stuff...

/me shrugs. Perhaps.

You make some good points and some that could be refuted. But I'm not interested in debating semantics.

You keep iterating what you think they should do. And frankly, what you advocate makes a lot of sense. But it's not about what you, or anyone else, thinks they should do. It's what they think they should do. Understanding how people see things, not how we see them but how they see them, is the first step towards motivating them to change their actions.

Sure, the alliances arrayed around TPF could continue to grind them into a pulp, but it will only continue to cost them, especially in political capital, more than it was worth to do so and if TPF never agrees to terms and disperses or goes underground, then it will be a pyrrhic victory.

The best thing, imo, is for them to get back to the negotiating table and hammer out a different agreement.

[ThatFALGuy]

**<snip>**

Sure, the alliances arrayed around TPF could continue to grind them into a pulp, but it will only continue to cost them, especially in political capital, more than it was worth to do so and if TPF never agrees to terms and disperses or goes underground, then it will be a pyrrhic victory.

The best thing, imo, is for them to get back to the negotiating table and hammer out a different agreement.

Most sound advice I have read yet.

[Jackalope Despot]

Okay, can someone please explain to me how the wording of the PC-TPF NAP can be seen as a loophole? If I recall correctly it stated that the treaty would be come null and void if/after one party attacked the other. So at the time PC attacked it was still active, and after that it would be considered dead. Standard practice with NAP's, methinks.

I could be wrong though. Correct me if so.

Also, while why does PC demand reps when (again, I could be wrong here) they bandwagoned into this war and so sustained no real damage. It's more like they are demanding reps for wrongs perpetrated before this conflict. If this is the case I find it sketchy at best and downright ammoral at worst.