TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[b3x]

Cancelling a treaty is not the same as breaking a treaty. Breaking the treaty means that you did something not legally allowed by the terms of teh treaty, which is what PC did.

PC did not follow the terms of the treaty which I have already proven and you seem to refuse to refute since it is not convenient for your argument or because you can't.

TPF broke a treaty with Goons and \M/ (among others)? Doesn't that exempt them from claiming that supposed treaty breakers don't deserve reps?

[King Srqt]

TPF broke a treaty with Goons and \M/ (among others)? Doesn't that exempt them from claiming that supposed treaty breakers don't deserve reps?

I don't believe they asked GOONS and \m/ for reps after they broke a treaty with them. PC broke a treaty with TPF and now wants to get money for breaking a treaty with them. Big difference.

[b3x]

I don't believe they asked GOONS and \m/ for reps after they broke a treaty with them. PC broke a treaty with TPF and now wants to get money for breaking a treaty with them. Big difference.

Seeing as TPF can declare that Treaty Breakers don't get reps, I am now declaring that Treaty Breakers cannot declare that people who end treaties in a way that the other treaty member disapproves of cannot get reps. So let is be said so let it be done.

This making it up as we go along rocks my socks.

[King Srqt]

Seeing as TPF can declare that Treaty Breakers don't get reps, I am now declaring that Treaty Breakers cannot declare that people who end treaties in a way that the other treaty member disapproves of cannot get reps. So let is be said so let it be done.

This making it up as we go along rocks my socks.

I know you like to twist things to make them fit your agenda but I would like to think most people are smart enough to see through the crap you are spewing.

but just in case;

TPF is not saying "treaty breakers can't get reps" they are saying they will not pay reps for a war with an alliance that broke a treaty with them to enter that war.

It is nice to see you give up on trying to say that PC didn't break the treaty though I was getting bored of beating you over the head with the logic of that argument.

Edited August 2, 2009 by KingSrqt

[JoseyWales]

Cancelling a treaty is not the same as breaking a treaty. Breaking the treaty means that you did something not legally allowed by the terms of teh treaty, which is what PC did.

PC did not follow the terms of the treaty which I have already proven and you seem to refuse to refute since it is not convenient for your argument or because you can't.

While some people may read the treaty the way you have described the one thing they lack is the perspective of being forced to sign the treaty, and then wondering what kind of screwed up statement that is about breaking it makes it null and void. It is not a far leap to then think this was written to make it easy for TPF to cancel the treaty by attacking PC at a moments notice. Of course TPF has denied that and swear that was never their intent but it was how it was read by us in PC. We can only act on information according to how we interpret it. Since we were the first to attack it will never be known outside of a small circle of people in TPF what their intent really was. How we read their intent has been made perfectly clear.

[King Srqt]

While some people may read the treaty the way you have described the one thing they lack is the perspective of being forced to sign the treaty, and then wondering what kind of screwed up statement that is about breaking it makes it null and void. It is not a far leap to then think this was written to make it easy for TPF to cancel the treaty by attacking PC at a moments notice. Of course TPF has denied that and swear that was never their intent but it was how it was read by us in PC. We can only act on information according to how we interpret it. Since we were the first to attack it will never be known outside of a small circle of people in TPF what their intent really was. How we read their intent has been made perfectly clear.

I am discussing facts not perspective or theoretical motivations. Whether or not TPF intended to exploit the wording and whether or not PC was justified in breaking the treaty because of the "forced" signing (I put quotations around forced since it was not actually forced but instead a choice you made in order to get out of other terms earlier then you would have) are a matter of opinion and can be debated as such.

Your alliance mate b3x decided to come in here and say that it was a fact that PC did not break the treaty which is blatantly false and what I was arguing against in the post you quoted.

[JoseyWales]

I am discussing facts not perspective or theoretical motivations. Whether or not TPF intended to exploit the wording and whether or not PC was justified in breaking the treaty because of the "forced" signing (I put quotations around forced since it was not actually forced but instead a choice you made in order to get out of other terms earlier then you would have) are a matter of opinion and can be debated as such.

Your alliance mate b3x decided to come in here and say that it was a fact that PC did not break the treaty which is blatantly false and what I was arguing against in the post you quoted.

Fact can not be determined without understanding the intent. Currently, if I understand correctly, there has been some discussion of who is able to send aid in payment of reps for another alliance. The intent of the peace treaty is being made the rule to the dismay of some that it was not spelled out more clearly in the actual treaty. We see the same thing here in understanding what the intent of the treaty was in how it can be canceled by either of the parties involved.

[b3x]

I know you like to twist things to make them fit your agenda but I would like to think most people are smart enough to see through the crap you are spewing.

but just in case;

TPF is not saying "treaty breakers can't get reps" they are saying they will not pay reps for a war with an alliance that broke a treaty with them to enter that war.

It is nice to see you give up on trying to say that PC didn't break the treaty though I was getting bored of beating you over the head with the logic of that argument.

Logic? sorry i thought we abandoned logic for nonsensical musings ... that's where i was going

[King Srqt]

Logic? sorry i thought we abandoned logic for nonsensical musings ... that's where i was going

well that would certainly explain why you are trying to argue that you didn't break a treaty that you said you broke because you couldn't break it because the treaty said if you broke it it would be broken.

[maxnmike]

Fact can not be determined without understanding the intent. Currently, if I understand correctly, there has been some discussion of who is able to send aid in payment of reps for another alliance. The intent of the peace treaty is being made the rule to the dismay of some that it was not spelled out more clearly in the actual treaty. We see the same thing here in understanding what the intent of the treaty was in how it can be canceled by either of the parties involved.

You, PC, assumed that TPF would use the wording in the treaty to attack you when they wanted, except they didn't. You know what happens when you assume... yeah, you did.

[BamaBuc]

While some people may read the treaty the way you have described the one thing they lack is the perspective of being forced to sign the treaty, and then wondering what kind of screwed up statement that is about breaking it makes it null and void. It is not a far leap to then think this was written to make it easy for TPF to cancel the treaty by attacking PC at a moments notice. Of course TPF has denied that and swear that was never their intent but it was how it was read by us in PC. We can only act on information according to how we interpret it. Since we were the first to attack it will never be known outside of a small circle of people in TPF what their intent really was. How we read their intent has been made perfectly clear.

That has been thoroughly debunked for the primary reason that it is just plain stupid. Let me explain why. If you wanted to build a loophole into a treaty, why in the world would you specifically state that doing so BREAKS the treaty? That is just not logical. If you wanted a loophole, you would make it nice and clean, not something that says you're breaking it. Furthermore, there are all sorts of better loopholes other than just attacking the person. You could say "if one signatory attacks a treaty partner of the other, treaty void", give a protectorate to an alliance PC is raiding, and say "whoops, they attacked our treaty partner, treaty void." It just does not make any sense to deliberately put that clause there for use as a loophole.

And the treaty was not forced. I went back and looked, and this NAP was part of an agreement to let PC out of terms early. It was not a term to avoid war. Pooksland has confirmed this.

-Bama

[Roadie]

Seeing as TPF can declare that Treaty Breakers don't get reps, I am now declaring that Treaty Breakers cannot declare that people who end treaties in a way that the other treaty member disapproves of cannot get reps. So let is be said so let it be done.

This making it up as we go along rocks my socks.

TPF didn't declare that treaty breakers don't get reps. They declared they weren't going to pay reps to PC for breaking a treaty with us. No the same thing.

This 'making it up as you go along' thing isn't working out too well for you, Son.

[Jackalope Despot]

(ooc) This will be my last post in this thread as i think 60 pages is probably far enough in for me to get involved in the SECOND thread about an issue that is almost totally unrelated to my ingame persona. That being said, I was almost leaning towards PC's side of the argument until B3x started posting(/ooc)

PC broke the treaty. Unless you are:

A ). An infant

or

B ).Dr. Seuss the treaty could not be legitimately canceled by breaking it. Srqt has covered this nicely.

These terms are very reasonable; lenient, even, once one gets over the whole treaty cancellation/DoW/reps to PC bit.

I hope TPF negotiates their way out of this soon.

And that is all I have to say.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Jackalope Despot

[JBone]

This sums it up pretty much exactly. You are saying that no matter how big and bad we act they wont back down, but that goes both ways. TPF lost the war. Period. We dont have to cater to them if they are gonna be persistent.

If your catering...I want ribs on the buffet, cat ribs.

I don't think anyone from TPF said they were hard terms. They said that they are not going to give PC anything, nor should they. It doesn't matter how the treaty was worded or what the perceived intent was, that facts are that PC broke the treaty not TPF and thus deserve nothing from TPF but their scorn.

Heya Max, how ya been? Long time pal.

[Chief Savage Man]

• 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 True
  
• Tough Cookies, you made your bed, lie in it. True
  
• 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') Hurf Durf
  
• STA was made to pay big reps when entering on behalf of Polar and got !@#$%*^, so you should too. True
  
• You bailed out on the UJP you must pay into eternity Very True
  
• What is the definition of "is"? Hurf Durf
  
• You killed my father! You Couldn't Kill My Father If He was Crippled
  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. Only After Being Shamed Into It 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
  

Sorry, bro, but TPF has no credibility left and you're probably better off pulling a Gen\m/ay and rebuilding.

[deathcat]

If your catering...I want ribs on the buffet, cat ribs.

Where's the Love?? Besides..I have pigs resources...so I can offer you applewood smoked, spice rubbed and Huckleberry mop sauced PORK ribs in their place ..

Will you take my reps offer now JB?

[dejarue]

I don't believe they asked GOONS and \m/ for reps after they broke a treaty with them. PC broke a treaty with TPF and now wants to get money for breaking a treaty with them. Big difference.

Right. They condemned them to perma-war.

Is this a superior option, here?

[BamaBuc]

Right. They condemned them to perma-war.

Is this a superior option, here?

We did? I wasn't aware we'd ever fought GOONS or \m/.

-Bama

[Kahnite]

Sorry, bro, but TPF has no credibility left and you're probably better off pulling a Gen\m/ay and rebuilding.

Thanks for the laugh.

[maxnmike]

Heya Max, how ya been? Long time pal.

Hello there JBone, it has been a long time. Funny little planet we play on now isn't it?

[Heyman]

Hello there JBone, it has been a long time. Funny little planet we play on now isn't it?

I see no humor. Not anymore.

[maxnmike]

I see no humor. Not anymore.

Hang in there, don't let the haters get you down.

[Heyman]

Hang in there, don't let the haters get you down.

Trust me, I'm hanging em high.

[Dochartaigh]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha

seriously, I have only read a few pages, but this thread is hilarious. hey to all those in TPF i know and get along with. Not sure if i like anyone in PC except possibly CTB. either way, keep up the good work. i needed a good laugh so cheers to both of ya'll.

[Penkala]

I am discussing facts not perspective or theoretical motivations. Whether or not TPF intended to exploit the wording and whether or not PC was justified in breaking the treaty because of the "forced" signing (I put quotations around forced since it was not actually forced but instead a choice you made in order to get out of other terms earlier then you would have) are a matter of opinion and can be debated as such.

Your alliance mate b3x decided to come in here and say that it was a fact that PC did not break the treaty which is blatantly false and what I was arguing against in the post you quoted.

I mean he's right. PC broke the treaty. Now I think it may be true that Mhawk may have used the clause the same way, and I would be out here pointing that out too, but you really have to be pretty damned biased to see this as not breaking a treaty.