Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 There is a difference between getting back at an alliance that has a dark history (especially if that history involves that alliance stepping all over your alliance) and punishing alliances that have no such history.Had TPF not handed out horrible terms and all that junk, then this would be a totally different ballgame. ^^_ thanks, so do you believe that this is the TPF of old? Looking at their government I would say it's Esylum, so the Question is do we punish the individuals or the alliance? If TPF Disband and all them members moved to Esylum AA would they be off free or would the war carry over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delendum Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 After reading through this litered, garbage dump of post by pepole with idiotic and petty assumptions and or rediculas reasoning.....I wonder how many of you actually tried to understand the words in OBM's post. I can't help but think that had anyone of you been in our shoes, you would have done anything different....... At least those of you with any honor.What would you have us do, abandon our treaty and leave our allies to the wolves. We honored our treaty, basically to death! We have lost over 100 members, millions in NS, tech and infra just to honor a treaty and stand by our word. This has nothing to do with pride or anything but honor, and i ask any of you to stand in our shoes regaurdless of your feelings towards TPF and its members and ask yourself how would i feel if i were in their same shoes. Oh sure its easy to bandwagon or pic the stomping side, and even easier to sling BS on the fourms. But the real courage and honor comes from standing by your word...win or lose. PC broke a contract, do you think they would have had the odds been in our favor? NO! It doesn't take a rocket scientest to know that the best way to break the treaty is to ignor it and attack anyway. Also this is CN, things change....nothing is even the same for very long here, and you just might find yourself in not to different of a circumstance in the future. One last thing, TPF is not the same TPF it was. BG. Oh my good man, but I know what it is to be in your shoes way better than you could even imagine. While admittedly it didn't last for a few months, when MK got stomped we gave it our all, and we had a long way to fall. We fought a defensive war, a war that we didn't help start in any way, shape or form, a war fought over one of the !@#$tiest CB's in history, and we joined it knowing that we might never get out of it. It's you who needs to try a different pair of shoes. Unlike now, it was considered merciful that we were even OFFERED peace, since originally we were expecting to be denied altogether. Unlike you, we couldn't afford the luxury of complaining about the terms offered, of insulting those offering them to us, or of even realistically negotiating anything. Unlike you, we were asked to pay an insane amount of reps. We had to pay these reps to an alliance that went after us just because they could. An alliance that had held us on a diplomatic blacklist for over a year just because they didn't like us. Excuse me if I don't have any sympathy for your hurt little pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 TPF get over it you lost and you have to pay reps to those who defeated you no matter how the war started. No e-lawyering no propaganda thats just the way it is The hell it is. Did you seriously just write that Steo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The hell it is. Did you seriously just write that Steo? Okay let me rephrase that TPF get over it you lost and if you want you have to pay reps to those who defeated you no matter how the war started. Now if they don't want peace they are free to live out their days in peace mode and lose the chance to rebuild over some stupid grudge just don't complain about you have your way out and a free to take it at anytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 ^^_ thanks, so do you believe that this is the TPF of old? Looking at their government I would say it's Esylum, so the Question is do we punish the individuals or the alliance? If TPF Disband and all them members moved to Esylum AA would they be off free or would the war carry over? Pardon my manners, but I will answer your question with a question. Has TPF done anything that has shown you they have truly changed? If one tyrant takes over for another tyrant, is the kingdom a happy place to live? I'm not saying mhawk is a tyrant, just curious as to your opinion regarding whether TPF has really changed. As far as the war carrying over, that is up to the people they are fighting and not me. However, renaming an alliance to get out of terms would not really sit well with me if I was their opponents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I fail to see how the sentiment is made any more just. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 If TPF is going to have past transgressions held against them then it is only fair that PC have recent transgressions held against them. Otherwise, that's what we e-lawyers call a double standard which supposedly were supposed to go away with this war. I'm saying PC should be called to task for their past as TPF should be. However, since the one does not effect the outcome of the other it makes no sense to lump them together. If TPF said, "Pay California and we'll pay PC" then it would be different but they have gone out of their way to say that there is no way they will pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velocity111 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I fail to see how the sentiment is made any more just. Not saying it is, just showing you his latest stance on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedestro Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 For one, I´m not seeing the initial arguments being refuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The hell it is. Did you seriously just write that Steo? I am in a bad evil mood today. I would order EZI if I could Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Pardon my manners, but I will answer your question with a question. Has TPF done anything that has shown you they have truly changed? If one tyrant takes over for another tyrant, is the kingdom a happy place to live? I'm not saying mhawk is a tyrant, just curious as to your opinion regarding whether TPF has really changed. Well no offense to TPF, I think the fact that they stood by NPO durring the war is a sign that they have changed. Looking into their current history, you will find that they have not handed down harsh tersm, looking to the leadership themselves you see that Esylum was respected as an honorable alliance, and had no harsh misgives. Now I understand the winner chooses the course of history, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. A tyrant can't replace a tyrant and claim moral high ground. Karma can't use their beat down as justification for this beat down, because the point of this war was suppose to be change, not revenge. Even if it is about revenge what is gained in holding the people not responsible, responsible. That is the kind of thing the NPO did, I had hoped more out of Karma, sadly it has been said before, the hedgimony is not gone they just changed sides. How many of the so called Karma members where part of the beat downs in the No-CB war. Look at the roster it's shocking who was calling the shots then and now. No I do not mean to call out the STA, I can not find fault in your alliance. You stood with an allie and that is honor, what i can't see is when someone else is put into the same situation why would you not fight to prevent it. Apathy is what cause the NPO to gain the power they had As far as the war carrying over, that is up to the people they are fighting and not me. However, renaming an alliance to get out of terms would not really sit well with me if I was their opponents. Edited July 25, 2009 by Dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well no offense to TPF, I think the fact that they stood by NPO durring the war is a sign that they have changed. Looking into their current history, you will find that they have not handed down harsh tersm, looking to the leadership themselves you see that Esylum was respected as an honorable alliance, and had no harsh misgives. Now I understand the winner chooses the course of history, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. A tyrant can't replace a tyrant and claim moral high ground. Karma can't use their beat down as justification for this beat down, because the point of this war was suppose to be change, not revenge. Even if it is about revenge what is gained in holding the people not responsible, responsible. That is the kind of thing the NPO did, I had hoped more out of Karma, sadly it has been said before, the hedgimony is not gone they just changed sides. How many of the so called Karma members where part of the beat downs in the No-CB war. Look at the roster it's shocking who was calling the shots then and now. Some would argue the fact that standing by the NPO in their initially aggressive war and supporting everything the NPO did and will do (through their MADP) shows that they have not changed at all. Just because they are faithful to an evil friend does not mean they have changed for the better. But that is all a matter of opinion. No I do not mean to call out the STA, I can not find fault in your alliance. You stood with an allie and that is honor, what i can't see is when someone else is put into the same situation why would you not fight to prevent it. Apathy is what cause the NPO to gain the power they had Are you suggesting that the STA should have fought in defense of TPF? I'm not clear what you mean by us "fighting to prevent it." We were only in this war due to our treaties and we exited out as soon as possible. We have no treaties with TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneBallMan Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm saying PC should be called to task for their past as TPF should be. However, since the one does not effect the outcome of the other it makes no sense to lump them together. If TPF said, "Pay California and we'll pay PC" then it would be different but they have gone out of their way to say that there is no way they will pay. Well, Flinders, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that somewhere in this cosmos, that the amount of Reps that PC agreed to pay California was added, after the fact, to the amount of reps asked from TPF originally. Let's just say that. Would you see our position vis-a-vis PC and our refusal to pay them one cent a little clearer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Much respect to TPF. PC has no right to demand blood money in this situation. They broke a treaty just to attack their treaty partner. How !@#$@#$ low can you get? Seriously, it's hard to believe all those alliances on the Karma side of this front would put their signatures on such a joke of a rep. The term of paying reparations to PC is far worse in TPF's eyes, than the ridiculous 1k tech stipulation placed on NPO and Echelon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 E-lawyers be damned, past transgressions be damned, if you look at it in the simple light of what is going on you can easily take issue with it. What the leaders of TPF are doing is letting a grudge that has gone on far past this current war dictate the suffering of the rest of their members. The goal of alliance leaders is to promote a safe and prosperous environment for their citizens, and TPFs leaders are doing neither. That is why people should take issue with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well, Flinders, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that somewhere in this cosmos, that the amount of Reps that PC agreed to pay California was added, after the fact, to the amount of reps asked from TPF originally. Let's just say that. Would you see our position vis-a-vis PC and our refusal to pay them one cent a little clearer? I'll have to ignore this because it's silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakerzz8 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Much respect to TPF.PC has no right to demand blood money in this situation. They broke a treaty just to attack their treaty partner. How !@#$@#$ low can you get? Seriously, it's hard to believe all those alliances on the Karma side of this front would put their signatures on such a joke of a rep. The term of paying reparations to PC is far worse in TPF's eyes, than the ridiculous 1k tech stipulation placed on NPO and Echelon. Just curious. If PC and TPF no longer deemed themselves allies and PC wanted to end the treaty. How else could they have ended the treaty whose sole cancellation clause is breaking the treaty? Wouldn't breaking the treaty be there only way of following the terms of the treaty to end it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneBallMan Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'll have to ignore this because it's silly. Then you don't know me very well. I am never silly. Cause that is what happened here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Just curious. If PC and TPF no longer deemed themselves allies and PC wanted to end the treaty. How else could they have ended the treaty whose sole cancellation clause is breaking the treaty? Wouldn't breaking the treaty be there only way of following the terms of the treaty to end it? Poor wording in the treaty, perhaps. I suppose if you use the old WUT as an example, you have a case. However, that doesn't make it any less disgusting on PC's part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Some would argue the fact that standing by the NPO in their initially aggressive war and supporting everything the NPO did and will do (through their MADP) shows that they have not changed at all. Just because they are faithful to an evil friend does not mean they have changed for the better. But that is all a matter of opinion.Are you suggesting that the STA should have fought in defense of TPF? I'm not clear what you mean by us "fighting to prevent it." We were only in this war due to our treaties and we exited out as soon as possible. We have no treaties with TPF. I understand this, but it seems that STA fights verbally for the same thing that was done to them to be done to TPF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well no offense to TPF, I think the fact that they stood by NPO durring the war is a sign that they have changed. Looking into their current history, you will find that they have not handed down harsh tersm, looking to the leadership themselves you see that Esylum was respected as an honorable alliance, and had no harsh misgives. No I do not mean to call out the STA, I can not find fault in your alliance. You stood with an allie and that is honor, what i can't see is when someone else is put into the same situation why would you not fight to prevent it. Apathy is what cause the NPO to gain the power they had Elysium once forced Barbarossa out of government of an alliance because he angered them, then attacked Blitzkrieg when they let him back in. In other words mhawk dictated the government of an alliance he had nothing to do with because someone made him mad. Elysium was part of the initial jump on Hyperion in the noCB war. Elysium threatened and schemed using it's connections to Valhalla as a way to do so at little personal risk. Elysium was a very aggressive alliance, preferring threats to diplomacy. Please don't say that Elysium was respected. The only people who respected them were Valhalla, and that's all most people need to know they were not a benevolent alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I understand this, but it seems that STA fights verbally for the same thing that was done to them to be done to TPF http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1718358 That's from this very thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuck Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1718358That's from this very thread. I knew there was a reson I liked STA. I apologize I did not read that until now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Then you don't know me very well. I am never silly. Cause that is what happened here. Do you see how ignoring valid points doesn't make them go away? At least we've learned something today. But let's expand on your idea that California was taking into account when mhawk first brought a proposal to those fighting him. Why does that not seem to add up with the new 500 million dollar difference between what Karma is asking and what TPF will give? Surely you don't believe PC should be paying 500 million dollars for the raid. Edited July 25, 2009 by Captain Flinders 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.