Big Z Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 From my perspective, a lot of the current heat was from them attacking us despite the NAP (it was viewed in TPF as them breaking a treaty to hit us). As OBM said, they don't want to pay a cent to a foe they view as dishonorable. If PC were to take this chance and let them go, it should diffuse hatred on the TPF end. I mean, its hard to be angry at someone who just gives you peace. Mhawk was trying to put the past where it belongs, the past. I feel if PC showed a similar sentiment, the hatred would die down.Sure there is a chance the cycle will continue, but I feel there is a greater chance it won't. Well, if that's the prevailing attitude in TPF, then that should be conveyed in private channels, instead of posts on the OWF which could be misconstrued as the opposite. At least, that's what I would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I'm sure TPF feels it is worth it. If someone disagrees, they are free to leave and rebuild. Honestly though, I think if TPF were to take the reps, and the more expedient of the two ways you mentioned out of the war, they would one day be back to take back that pound of flesh PC is asking. I'm surprised PC doesn't realize this, and just drop the request and end it now. I wouldn't mind more warz in the future but that's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wellington Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I think the simple precedence that TPF is trying to set is that alliances that break treaties to enter a war against their allies dont deserve reparations. I think it is actually a step in the right direction for planet Bob and Karma would do well by looking at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Well, if that's the prevailing attitude in TPF, then that should be conveyed in private channels, instead of posts on the OWF which could be misconstrued as the opposite. At least, that's what I would do. Well it isn't like TPF brought this to the public first, that alliances fighting TPF decided to make a giant spectacle out of TPF's refusal of terms so it seems only reasonable that TPF would respond via the same venue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymatty Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 From my perspective, a lot of the current heat was from them attacking us despite the NAP (it was viewed in TPF as them breaking a treaty to hit us). As OBM said, they don't want to pay a cent to a foe they view as dishonorable. If PC were to take this chance and let them go, it should diffuse hatred on the TPF end. I mean, its hard to be angry at someone who just gives you peace. Mhawk was trying to put the past where it belongs, the past. I feel if PC showed a similar sentiment, the hatred would die down.Sure there is a chance the cycle will continue, but I feel there is a greater chance it won't. No offense but do you really think that if PC dropped it's share of the reps TPF would be all cool with us? They would still be mad at the "broken" treaty, the loss of nations, loss of tech, $$ and over Nation Strength. Sure they would be happy they get peace, and dont pay PC anything...but I highly doubt we would be drinking buddies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 No offense but do you really think that if PC dropped it's share of the reps TPF would be all cool with us? They would still be mad at the "broken" treaty, the loss of nations, loss of tech, $$ and over Nation Strength. Sure they would be happy they get peace, and dont pay PC anything...but I highly doubt we would be drinking buddies. Maybe just NAP buddies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbacher Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Maybe just NAP buddies? LOL, that is sortof funny, in a hysterical type of way . I don't think drinking buddies is on the venue right now, but I am sure it would cool down tensions on our side anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 to be entirely honest, nothing is forever. FARK was going to be at war forever, FAN was going to be at war forever. If TPF chooses to fight forever, one of a couple things are likely to happen, 1) they bleed members till they disband. I don't think this is likely because it would have already likely happened by now. 2) those fighting TPF including PC get involved in another conflict and they will no long wish to waste their resources on TPF. I think this is the likely outcome as history has shown this does infact happen.Im sure other things can happen as well (totalphoenixstan!)... but it wont be war till bob explodes. GOONS was going to be at war forever. OcUK was going to be at war forever. Look at how that turned out for them. Not everyone that goes through eternal war comes out of it like Fark and FAN did. Most don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I believe you're forgetting that mhawk talked to me when I first returned, looking for stuff to pin on PC and twisted in general for a "legitimate" reason to roll them. Something about "recruiting"oh yeah, but of course, mhawk didn't want to roll them. Yet those conversations did happen, but no, no, they weren't because he wanted them dead, far from it, they were because he wanted to throw them a tea party because they were such awesome recruiters in his mind. I told you straight up that I wanted to understand where PC was coming from. The fact we didn't attack them and that I spent much time in the many months before the war trying to get to know the pc membership should be telling of that. Asking what happened back in the day is becoming familiar with the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 You're also assuming that dropping the reps would make things better again. As some of the responses in this thread indicated, internal feelings in TPF about PC are pretty...heated so to speak (at least that's the feeling I get). Speaking from PC's pov, what's to say TPF wouldn't want to get their pound of flesh later on anyway? This war didn't exactly improve on what they had before. But, I'm also not a mind reader and just speculating, so don't take my words as anything more than what they are. The internal feelings are a natural response by many who feel that they were instrumental in stopping Slayer from rolling PC and in turn are now being told "Thanks guys, now if ya don't mind bend over and grab your ankles for us." No offense but do you really think that if PC dropped it's share of the reps TPF would be all cool with us? They would still be mad at the "broken" treaty, the loss of nations, loss of tech, $$ and over Nation Strength. Sure they would be happy they get peace, and dont pay PC anything...but I highly doubt we would be drinking buddies. I think you underestimate the relationships of some of your leadership and many members of TPF. I told you straight up that I wanted to understand where PC was coming from. The fact we didn't attack them and that I spent much time in the many months before the war trying to get to know the pc membership should be telling of that. Asking what happened back in the day is becoming familiar with the situation. Your wasting your breath on him. His self appointed role here is to be the sand in everyones vag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrototyoeRuler Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) Can we please just wrap this thread up? Here I will go ahead and do it... 1) As long as PC is getting reps there not going to surrender. 2) PC is "evil" for breaking a NAP. 3) TPF continues to only care for it's pride rather than peace. 4) No one likes mhawk. Alright, there you guys go. Save your breathe, this thread is now a cluster of chest thumping idiots. Edited July 29, 2009 by PrototyoeRuler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) GOONS was going to be at war forever. OcUK was going to be at war forever. Look at how that turned out for them. Not everyone that goes through eternal war comes out of it like Fark and FAN did. Most don't. Fark and FAN had one big thing in common too, and that was they're both fairly insulated communities with a very common goal. FARK had no trouble at all playing with themselves during that time, and neither did FAN. The others? The others did not. I suspect TPF will not either, they don't have the outside base like FARK and FAN did to sustain themselves, or to be content and actually happy to play within their little community. Edited July 29, 2009 by astronaut jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) Can we please just wrap this thread up? Here I will go ahead and do it...1) As long as PC is getting reps there not going to surrender. 2) PC is "evil" for breaking a NAP. 4) No one likes mhawk..[citation needed] Alright, there you guys go. Save your breathe, this thread is now a cluster of chest thumping idiots. You were not forced to reed this thread. If you are against this thread. don't come here. Edited July 29, 2009 by xoindotnler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruler with Plan X Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 FARK had no trouble at all playing with themselves during that time We still do that all the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 We still do that all the time you know what I mean . FARK had something that bound them together during that time, they felt threatened and isolated, but what did it matter? They had a larger community, a pre-existing community that drew them all together, so they just relied on that and rode out the storm, and now look at them. I don't think TPF can do the same. They can try, but, ultimately, they'll fail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrototyoeRuler Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 You were not forced to reed this thread. If you are against this thread. don't come here. No but I am forced to see this thread continue to go on and on at almost 50 pages and literally nothing has come from it. Don't you realize that neither side will admit there wrong and feel they are both right regardless of facts? So yes, I was saving other players some time and encouraging this thread to flop over and die. But of course, people like yourself hop in and puff up your chest and stick up for an alliance that doesn't care about you or your opinion regardless. Good job though. I look forward to more post from the likes of you and your alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 I think the simple precedence that TPF is trying to set is that alliances that break treaties to enter a war against their allies dont deserve reparations.I think it is actually a step in the right direction for planet Bob and Karma would do well by looking at this. No, the precedence TPF is trying to set is that a defeated alliance can dicate their surrenders terms. Obviously, you will not succeed at this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 No, the precedence TPF is trying to set is that a defeated alliance can dicate their surrenders terms. Obviously, you will not succeed at this. If they were demanding reps, you'd have a point. Look, refusing a particular term is not the same as dictating the whole set of terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 If they were demanding reps, you'd have a point.Look, refusing a particular term is not the same as dictating the whole set of terms. Refusing nasty mean ugly terms gets you public sympathy, refusing terms because you don't like them makes you look stupid. On the upside, it might eventually work. When the whole alliance is at ZI they might just end up with zero reps since they cant pay anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Refusing nasty mean ugly terms gets you public sympathy, refusing terms because you don't like them makes you look stupid.On the upside, it might eventually work. When the whole alliance is at ZI they might just end up with zero reps since they cant pay anything. You can argue about whether what they're doing is justified. Just don't cast it as them trying to dictate terms. I'm sure mhawk would love to have the alliances he's fighting pay to help him rebuild TPF, for example, but that just isn't what's going on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 No but I am forced to see this thread continue to go on and on at almost 50 pages and literally nothing has come from it. Don't you realize that neither side will admit there wrong and feel they are both right regardless of facts? So yes, I was saving other players some time and encouraging this thread to flop over and die. But of course, people like yourself hop in and puff up your chest and stick up for an alliance that doesn't care about you or your opinion regardless. Good job though. I look forward to more post from the likes of you and your alliance. TPF doesn't care about Avalon? Wow that's a new one for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 2) PC is "evil" for breaking a NAP. Is it better to break some types of treaty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 You can argue about whether what they're doing is justified. Just don't cast it as them trying to dictate terms. I'm sure mhawk would love to have the alliances he's fighting pay to help him rebuild TPF, for example, but that just isn't what's going on here. Justified doesn't come into it, TPF lost, an aggressive war at that, TPF pays reps. You don't like the alliance you are paying reps too? Boo hoo. You think they did you dirty? Boo hoo. Do you think anybody ever getting anything other than white peace was ever happy with their surrender terms? Heres a Quarter call somebody who cares. Maybe you'll find sympathy, then again maybe you'll find yet more people telling you to stop whining and accept terms that amount to a slap on the wrist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 Is it better to break some types of treaty? Apparently so. NAP's signed at gunpoint are more important than MADPs signed out of free will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted July 29, 2009 Report Share Posted July 29, 2009 TPF, I saw this quote the other day and thought of you. “You're in the midst of a war: a battle between the limits of a crowd seeking the surrender of your dreams, and the power of your true vision to create and contribute. It is a fight between those who will tell you what you cannot do, and that part of you that knows and has always known that we are more than our environment; and that a dream, backed by an unrelenting will to attain it, is truly a reality with an imminent arrival.” ~ Anthony Robbins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.