TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Captain Flinders]

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 might just be poor sentence structure but these two instances ("bandwagoning" and level of sustained damage) are not indicative of each other.

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.

TPF has done it in the past. TPF has done worst in the past. Why would they receive different treatment in that regard?

[deth2munkies]

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.

Not when the "what if" question merely serves as a trap and red herring.

/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.

I say what I think they should do, yes, and I give sound logic to back it up. No person from TPF has responded to me, no member of TPF has probably even bothered to read my posts because they are, like the ones they are responding to, quite verbose and not on the hot button "ZOMG PC BROKE THE TREATY" part that people can use canned phrases to respond to. I'm pointing out the best possible course of action given the circumstances and giving you solid reasons why they should do it.

The alliances that are grinding TPF right now aren't losing any political capital worth having, the only people really defending TPF ardently are their allies, who are all under surrender terms as well. Allies supporting each other in matters like this are to be expected, but there is no good coming from the continued struggle from the TPF point of view. From Karma's point of view, they're either:

A: Suffering righteous punishment for their past sins.

B: A Tech farm and way to train newbies in the arts of war.

or

C: FAN 2.0

None of those cause even the littlest bit of suffering for any alliances at war with TPF, whereas TPF continues to bleed members for no other reason but...oh wait, I'm repeating myself. Just read up what I've said already if you want to know the rest. I'll add on that none of that gives TPF any leverage worth having at the negotiating table.

The point is, TPF if anything is hurting their PR by showing themselves a stubborn people that hold grudges indefinitely. Valhalla and other alliances that are known to do these things are nearly universally maligned, and so TPF shall be. At least FAN had a large portion of the cyberverse crying foul when NPO jumped them, TPF have nobody in any position of relative power pulling for them, and they are destined to fade into obscurity unless they swallow their pride, take the terms, then grow back twice as strong as they were before.

[Trout]

Ya know I luv ya kid.

You are always a sweetheart and a gentleman.....same goes for pooks, boogey, topia and the departed yellow menace, but you do have a few over there who are nothing but foul mouth, snot nosed punks...hai mush, energizer & dippah.

I could just hug you.

[Jackalope Despot]

It might just be poor sentence structure but these two instances ("bandwagoning" and level of sustained damage) are not indicative of each other.

TPF has done it in the past. TPF has done worst in the past. Why would they receive different treatment in that regard?

On the first point you are correct, poor sentence construction on my part (typing stealthly at work, eh). What I meant was more along the lines of that they bandwagoned in at such a point that there was little resistance for them and they managed so sustain little damage. A weak connection, but a connection nonetheless. As I said, I could be misinformed and maybe they lost 3/4 of their alliance strength in the war, but that was not the impression I received.

On the second point, yes TPF has done worse. Much worse. Does that excuse PC?

I really am not on either side here, nor do I have any particular insight. I'm just a homeless dude searching Athens with a lantern.

[janax]

PC DoWed on TPF before Mushroom Kingdom, and only 10 minutes after the first declaration of war on TPF, by Greenland Republic.

They did not start vulturing any corpse. They were in the first wave.

[Captain Flinders]

On the second point, yes TPF has done worse. Much worse. Does that excuse PC?

I don't think PC has anything to be excused for. TPF has set the precedent of how they treat others. The old saying goes, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". Now that TPF is no longer calling the shots, asking for reperations from them is immoral, wrong, etc. yet these terms don't even come close to the IC and OOC anguish the TPF machine has caused. TPF brought this on themselves and should suck it up and be thankful that they have legitimate and realistic terms that do not attempt to make a mockery of their people. They would not get such terms from myself and I doubt I'm alone in that mind set.

[Jackalope Despot]

PC DoWed on TPF before Mushroom Kingdom, and only 10 minutes after the first declaration of war on TPF, by Greenland Republic.

They did not start vulturing any corpse. They were in the first wave.

I see. In that case, reps are perfectly acceptable if one views their NAP as fundamentally flawed (which I don't, but that's neither here nor there and not entirely pertinent) and if they had a legitimate treaty obligation. Could someone direct me to the treaty that they were honoring in declaring?

In the end, it really gets down to plain old bad blood between two alliances, I believe.

[pooksland]

I see. In that case, reps are perfectly acceptable if one views their NAP as fundamentally flawed (which I don't, but that's neither here nor there and not entirely pertinent) and if they had a legitimate treaty obligation. Could someone direct me to the treaty that they were honoring in declaring?

In the end, it really gets down to plain old bad blood between two alliances, I believe.

DT follow GR in with their MDoAP or MADP (not quite sure which one it is, but I think it is the former) and then we followed DT in with our MADP. But I am amazed at how long their whole NAP business is being debated for, I mean it has been since we declared. Just curious though, who you consider a NAP forcefully signed under the threat of gangbang with a seeminlgy hiden loophole written by those who forced the signing to be used when the situation fitted them better, would actually be taken seriously and be respected by both parties?

P.S. sorry for that run-on-sentence just didn't want to break it all up.

[OneBallMan]

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.

More talk about your feelings I see, you've been deeply hurt here, I'll find someone to huggle you. You don't know me from earwax, so I don't know where you get that line from.

I see that the alliance at the top of the pile through smooth political maneuvering showing that it will support people like PC when it is expedient, and jettison friends when it no longer is. Should have, intent, regrettable... those are BS words we sell ourselves to sleep all cosy under our rocks.

I know I've heard of an alliance like that, but I can't place it.

At least MK is caught in the vice here, Sparta has no excuse.

[Jackalope Despot]

DT follow GR in with their MDoAP or MADP (not quite sure which one it is, but I think it is the former) and then we followed DT in with our MADP. But I am amazed at how long their whole NAP business is being debated for, I mean it has been since we declared. Just curious though, who you consider a NAP forcefully signed under the threat of gangbang with a seeminlgy hiden loophole written by those who forced the signing to be used when the situation fitted them better, would actually be taken seriously and be respected by both parties?

P.S. sorry for that run-on-sentence just didn't want to break it all up.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The NAP situation is just plain weird. Do I think treaties should be signed at the point of the sword? Of course not. I just think it should have been canceled rather than broken (though I don't remember it having a cancellation clause, which further complicates things) but I don't think the loophole really was a loophole. The biggest reason for the continued debate is probably the oddity of the whole thing-that treaty was strange when it was signed, strange when it was active, and strange when when it was cancelled.

Bear in mind, I have no love for TPF, they've tolerated and participated in some things which greatly angered and in some cases directly effected me. On the other hand I have no great admiration for PC either.

Don't worry about the grammar to much. People who are anal about e-grammar are compensating for something.

[ThatFALGuy]

The old saying goes, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

I think this sums up what people are saying.

It IS a two way street. Saying "well, you did this to us so we are going to take it to another level" is just plain retarded and descriptive of the mentality of the alliance leaders that perpetuate this.

[BamaBuc]

Thanks for clearing that up.

The NAP situation is just plain weird. Do I think treaties should be signed at the point of the sword? Of course not. I just think it should have been canceled rather than broken (though I don't remember it having a cancellation clause, which further complicates things) but I don't think the loophole really was a loophole. The biggest reason for the continued debate is probably the oddity of the whole thing-that treaty was strange when it was signed, strange when it was active, and strange when when it was cancelled.

Bear in mind, I have no love for TPF, they've tolerated and participated in some things which greatly angered and in some cases directly effected me. On the other hand I have no great admiration for PC either.

Don't worry about the grammar to much. People who are anal about e-grammar are compensating for something.

There was a perfectly usable cancellation clause.

-Bama

[Matthew Conrad]

More talk about your feelings I see, you've been deeply hurt here, I'll find someone to huggle you. You don't know me from earwax, so I don't know where you get that line from.

I see that the alliance at the top of the pile through smooth political maneuvering showing that it will support people like PC when it is expedient, and jettison friends when it no longer is. Should have, intent, regrettable... those are BS words we sell ourselves to sleep all cosy under our rocks.

I know I've heard of an alliance like that, but I can't place it.

At least MK is caught in the vice here, Sparta has no excuse.

So you have no actual answer to my argument and are just spouting the same nonsense from two pages back? I see where this is going. Where the $%&@ have I stated anything about my "feelings". In fact, I don't actually think you're reading my posts. Seriously, have you come up with a few standard auto-replies to my posts or do you lack that much original thought?

[Jackalope Despot]

There was a perfectly usable cancellation clause.

-Bama

Then I don't see why PC didn't cancel the repugnant thing as soon as possible. Would have smelled better than waiting to exploit the perceived loophole.

[pooksland]

There was a perfectly usable cancellation clause.

-Bama

If you would like to get to the bottom of this question please find me on IRC, I feel that this has been debated, redebated, and then debated to death enough already over the OWF. I have my own theory in this issue that guided my decision making and influence over how it was handled.

[Tygaland]

So let's say that I agree with you, that a treaty signed under pressure isn't as valid as one that you sign in open heartedness.

I never said it wasn't as valid, I said the party forced to sign it would not value it as highly as treaties they signed of their own free will.

Alright, let's move on that. It became very clear, in the last few months leading up to this conflict, the PC was no longer in a vulnerable position, and then had a number of solid and strong allies that would have stood with her especially with the tC departures. If you are going to call in the moral imperative that if under duress, I hold no responsibility to my commitments, then once that duress passes, do none of the rules of reasonable behavior apply?

Again, I implore you to actually read what I'm saying rather than running with what you want me to say so you can argue with me. The fact of the matter is that once the war began and TPF was at war against multiple alliances, any consequences of PC breaking the NAP disappeared. Therefore, they decided that breaking the NAP no longer held any danger to them. I have stated numerous times that I do not believe this is the right course of action, just the one PC took. I really grow tired of people like you not comprehending English.

To me that is analoguous of saying that if I would be free to claim self-defence under duress, that that assigns me immunity against my oppressor in perpetuity?

Where have I mentioned anything about self-defence in relation to this matter? Your ability to make up crap is phenonmenal.

You hate us, we get it. Not as much as pezstar, but it is still hate.

How does anything I posted with regards to these peace terms or PC breaking a treaty convey hate of TPF? Or do you just throw that tag line in when replying to all my posts to cover up the fact you once again ineptly stumbled past what I was saying to attack a figment of your imagination?

[Zergling]

• Let me get the following arguments out of the way for you so we can get to the crux of the issue.
  
• But TPF is ebil, you should be ground into dust and never allowed to return
  
• Tough Cookies, you made your bed, lie in it.
  
• You say you will pay X, but by my calculations, you can pay:v2= (2k/m) cos(x)+ C' or
  v= dx/dt= sqrt((2k/m) cos(x)+ C')
  
• STA was made to pay big reps when entering on behalf of Polar and got !@#$%*^, so you should too.
  
• You bailed out on the UJP you must pay into eternity
  
• What is the definition of "is"?
  
• You killed my father!
  See, there is an underlying issue here, and that is simple. The Phoenix Federation entered this war in defense of an ally that was attacked. That our ally was attacked in an aggressive war is irrelevant. We honored our treaty obligation to the end. Frankly, I was quite vocal then, and now that we were holding our noses doing it. But most relevant to this discussion, we were also attacked in abrogation of a signed treaty (put your self-rationalizing e-lawyering away).
  This part here, this is going to hurt. Hurt, because well, it calls out a few of our still and soon to be former allies. Many of you out there chose to ignore your treaty obligations this time around. Or, only sought to honor the least word of them , then bail out to save your skin. Good for you, if that's what tickles your fancy. Like 64Digits and Avalon and our frenemies in STA, TPF has decided that our course hence will be that we will honor the blood marks of our treaties, until that treaty partner has peace. You can say what you will, but the BS that some of you throw around about friends > infra, well, those are hollow words until you prove it. I can't speak to the past about what TPF might have done, but I can speak to the present. A treaty with TPF is a treaty to the end. Ask yourself if you can really say that about ANY of the former members of tC.
  As we see it, the forces aligned against us are driven to extract every drop of blood from us because we are the last stop on this bus ride, and this is the last chance to get something, anything from the spoils of this war. We get it. You can have what we can pay. But you will not get blood from a stone. And trust me, we are stoned and will pay what has been asked.
  We agree that the amounts outlined by Azaghul in his post are within the range of reasonable. But we will not pay one cent to PoisonClan. We will not now, nor ever reward an alliance that attacked us by e-lawyering their way around a signed treaty. I cannot believe that any of the other alliances aligned against us currently can dare to see what honor is gained here. As we agreed that we would stay in this war to the end, we also agreed to a person that we wouldn't reward war for profit. There is an adage here on Bob that says that alliances who don't like the terms offered have the option of refusing them, and continuing to war. The opposite is also thus true. Alliances that win the war have the option of assigning acceptable terms, to ensure that they get something out of their victory. We agree that the terms are mostly reasoned, but that the inclusion of PC in being rewarded for breaking a treaty is reprehensible. If the forces of Karma would rather continue to pummel us for the sake of an alliance who breaks it's treaties, well, we'd rather be nuked into oblivion. We have made mistakes, attempted to reconcile where we can and we are prepared to accept our responsibilities both current and historical, to pay what we can, and to move forward.
  OBM
  

Disband. Your alliance. NOW!

You just made the most disgraceful post I have ever seen. It doesn't even make sense, the KARMA war is over, you have no reason to fight anymore so stop.

[Monathin]

Disband. Your alliance. NOW!

You just made the most disgraceful post I have ever seen. It doesn't even make sense, the KARMA war is over, you have no reason to fight anymore so stop.

Well, what do we have here? A sentient Zergling! Hear hear!

In my own analysis, I'd have to say that this is more or less a ridiculous part of a war that has already concluded. You can say a treaty with whoever is a treaty till the end, but that''s not quite how the world works. Circumstances change. You can be loyal to your friends, you can be loyal to your allies, but at some point there comes a time where, if you have been defeated, you must accept that you were in the wrong. As a saying goes: "History is written by the victor." In this case, the victor being 'Not you'. That you have the sheer guts, audacity, and shamelessness to make this comment proves why you are where you are.

[Kahnite]

TPF's choices:

A. continue fighting

B. pay reps

PC's choices:

A. continue fighting

B. get reps

Both A and B are acceptable to PC. Only A is acceptable to TPF. So A it is, no? I don't see what the debate here is over.

People understand that PC signed that NAP under duress and that it was forced upon them rather than a treaty they approached as a mutually consenting party. One only has to look at PC's history to see that they fulfill all treaties to the letter of the law. Maybe you won't sign treaties with PC over a NAP that was legally rendered void not to mention forced on them, but I'm sure others who have a different opinion will, so spare us your rhetorical questions.

EPIC FAIL!!!

Spin Doctor Rule #44 - Discount the facts with mindless misdirection if you can't construct a valid argument.

Sign treaty, violate treaty, case closed.

[Cobalt]

read the first 15 pages, before the following pattern began to appear:

[Jackalope Despot]

If you would like to get to the bottom of this question please find me on IRC, I feel that this has been debated, redebated, and then debated to death enough already over the OWF. I have my own theory in this issue that guided my decision making and influence over how it was handled.

I will take you up on that next time I plan on spending some time there...in which channel would I most likely find you?

[pooksland]

I will take you up on that next time I plan on spending some time there...in which channel would I most likely find you?

You can find me mostly in #poisonclan, although I do also idle in #tpf. But look for me tomorrow anytime after 3 PM CN time, I am out for the night.

[b3x]

OP makes elmo cry ... ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Kilkenny]

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.

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

Oh I did, I just discounted it because it all sounded like political double talk that really said nothing at all. You seem to want to support PC in this, but are afraid that if it turns out that public opinion really goes away from them, you are covered in that direction to.

Talk about other people reading, why don't you read back yourself. If there is proof that it was done this way, other than the standard "I know it was cause I know" then show it. Anyone. Given the number of spies that have been in and out of TPF, esp from PC, it should be easy to find. I mean it was common knowledge according to everyone that we did it on purpose, so where is it.

Oh, and by the way, I was responding to someone else......I have always fond that when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. (in case you didn't get it, I threw a generalization out there with no names attached and you got upset, probably means you felt like it refered to you.)

[b3x]

Oh I did, I just discounted it because it all sounded like political double talk that really said nothing at all. You seem to want to support PC in this, but are afraid that if it turns out that public opinion really goes away from them, you are covered in that direction to.

Talk about other people reading, why don't you read back yourself. If there is proof that it was done this way, other than the standard "I know it was cause I know" then show it. Anyone. Given the number of spies that have been in and out of TPF, esp from PC, it should be easy to find. I mean it was common knowledge according to everyone that we did it on purpose, so where is it.

Oh, and by the way, I was responding to someone else......I have always fond that when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit. (in case you didn't get it, I threw a generalization out there with no names attached and you got upset, probably means you felt like it refered to you.)

turn in your bucket and mop, you're a failure. quit now. the big red button on the console, yes that one, press it.

i am a voice of reason, ask anyone.

EDIT: In light of Moderators warning, I would like to apologize for pointing out that Kilkenny is a bad Minister of War. Clearly that is out of line, unwarranted, and crosses the line of acceptable behavior. I would like to reword that, and simply say he is MOW challenged.

Edited July 28, 2009 by b3x