TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[mushi]

By that logic, all surrender terms are "forced" in the sense that if you don't accept them, the war goes on. What if all of our allies broke their terms tomorrow and came to our aid? As a loophole, they could say "PC technically isn't in Karma, so our terms don't apply to them." Would you simply say "Can't blame 'em... The terms were forced on them and they found a loophole"? I doubt it.

Greenie, you still keep saying we planned to use that loophole. Show us some evidence already.

-Bama

Please let your allies come to your aid. We need some more targets, and i think our allies are pretty bored aswell.

Also, I just happened to notice the fact that this entire long heated discussion regarding TPF and PC is missing something.. like, say, members of Poison Clan actually paying attention or saying things. I guess that goes to show the dire importance of this, and utter necessity for 32 pages of responses. Awesome.

There is really no point for PC members to argue here, as its the same thing that is addressed o page 10 and someone asks it again on page 20. Most of us have more important matters to attend to. E.g fighting TPF.

I'm sure PC is staying well clear of this thread. It won't take much to turn public opinion against them and in favor of TPF.

Our members are staying away from there own choice. It seems they think its not worth there time.

[Delta1212]

I understand what you as an alliance are doing, I just think you are cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Or in this instance, to spite someone who would very much like to see your nose cut off.

[Tygaland]

Or in this instance, to spite someone who would very much like to see your nose cut off.

lol, yes. That too.

[tenzen]

congratulations PC, you win no matter what TPF does

[flak attack]

You know, I still haven't seen an answer as to what TPF's allies would do if the alliances they surrendered to were to suddenly lose their ability to enforce the terms. Would it suddenly be fine for them to reenter the war?

[BamaBuc]

You know, I still haven't seen an answer as to what TPF's allies would do if the alliances they surrendered to were to suddenly lose their ability to enforce the terms. Would it suddenly be fine for them to reenter the war?

I stated that in my opinion they ought to honor their terms, unless the alliances they surrendered to disbanded, in which case the terms would be void. Not sure if any of our allies have come in here and given an official position on that hypothetical situation.

-Bama

[Matthew Conrad]

I stated that in my opinion they ought to honor their terms, unless the alliances they surrendered to disbanded, in which case the terms would be void. Not sure if any of our allies have come in here and given an official position on that hypothetical situation.

-Bama

Putting words into action in such cases is quite a transition. It remains to be seen if anyone can resist the urge to throw away their surrender terms given that there are no consequences for doing so. Basically, it's nice to say that you would honor surrender terms but would you if your ally was losing a war and you could stop it without further consequences?

[Yggdrazil]

You know, I still haven't seen an answer as to what TPF's allies would do if the alliances they surrendered to were to suddenly lose their ability to enforce the terms. Would it suddenly be fine for them to reenter the war?

I'm allied to TPF and still under terms. Until my alliance has met the obligation of those terms we agreed to (not me the leadership) then no we would not enter the war, if my alliance did without meeting all the terms of the agreement, I would walk. It is never fine to violate your word, even if given by proxy.

I have a question, isn't all Bob's peace agreements done at "the point of a gun". So by logical progression since it is signed under coercion, violations of peace agreements have most of all of ya'll approval since they are signed under duress?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Yggdrazil

[Kryievla]

Putting words into action in such cases is quite a transition. It remains to be seen if anyone can resist the urge to throw away their surrender terms given that there are no consequences for doing so.

If you can't stick to what you sign, then how can anyone trust you? Never mind having to live with yourself. I'd say there are *definitely* consequences, the biggest one being if you break your surrender terms for well, pretty much anything, you are an asshat of the highest order.

[Cyan1979]

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Learn from PC as they're relishing that dish right now.

Why not just agree to the terms and pay PC back another day?

It's also very possible by the time you fufill the terms, you become friends instead of foes. After all, you did live under the same roof and shed blood together once.

[Kahnite]

I think its quite clear. Question is, "If they regard treaties as nothing more than a worthless piece of paper, how should any other party regard a treaty with them?"

[Tygaland]

I think its quite clear. Question is, "If they regard treaties as nothing more than a worthless piece of paper, how should any other party regard a treaty with them?"

You can regard any treaty any way you like. If you do not think PC or anyone values a treaty then don't sign one with them. It is not like the treaty you are whining about was signed out of mutual goodwill in the first place.

[tenzen]

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.

I think its quite clear. Question is, "If they regard treaties as nothing more than a worthless piece of paper, how should any other party regard a treaty with them?"

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.

Edited July 27, 2009 by tenzen

[Tygaland]

I'm allied to TPF and still under terms. Until my alliance has met the obligation of those terms we agreed to (not me the leadership) then no we would not enter the war, if my alliance did without meeting all the terms of the agreement, I would walk. It is never fine to violate your word, even if given by proxy.

I have a question, isn't all Bob's peace agreements done at "the point of a gun". So by logical progression since it is signed under coercion, violations of peace agreements have most of all of ya'll approval since they are signed under duress?

You are free to break any treaty or agreement at anytime. Doing so does not remove the consequences of breaking such an agreement. PC saw no consequences for ditching the NAP and went ahead based on that knowledge.

Alliances under peace terms can throw off their terms anytime they like but they'll probably get beaten to a pulp for doing so and find it very hard to get new terms anything like their previous ones.

[Seerow]

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.

I like your style. You show uncommonly good sense for someone with 3 posts.

Whose reroll are you?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Seerow

[tenzen]

I like your style. You show uncommonly good sense for someone with 3 posts.

Whose reroll are you?

I do not speak of my past, for it is a dark and disturbed one that I wish not to revisit. :itisamystery:

[deth2munkies]

Then that makes TPF Texans and this final battle the Alamo. Yes, I know how the Alamo ends. No, I don't expect Moo to rally the Continuum and defeat Karma at San Jacinto. The analogy only goes so far, work with me.

What's left of TPF are volunteers. Indeed, they've actually had people *join* the alliance the past three months, which means they knew they were getting into a fight and joined anyway.

The only thing nastier to fight than a cornered army is a cornered army of volunteers.

So since the war began there is been absolutely no new reasons for TPF to hate PC? Of course there have. The California Incident comes to mind but there have been many more just on an individual level given the nature of the fight.

Note that I'm not saying here that TPF should walk with white peace (that is for those fighting them to decide), nor do I am I saying that there is particularly anything rational about it. It is what it is.

Of course they've had people join, but by far the trend is negative. I know during the No-CB war, I joined MK the night before they got stomped because LoSS was going to sit out despite our treaty with GR. I know exactly what fighting for a cause is like, but I also know that as a leader, you carry a different set of responsibilities than a normal member, albiet a very vocal one. You carry a responsibility to do what is best for all the members of your alliance, not your personal pride or petty grudges.

Why do you think a majority of the alliances surrendered last war? To use MK as an example, they'd had nothing but crap, bad blood, and a diplomatic blacklist from the NPO, however, once our allies got peace, the reason for us fighting was nowhere near as important as restoring the security of our citizens, even at the cost of a fair bit of pride.

Do you have so little faith in people to believe that when facing dishonor they won't fight to the death? Of course, not everyone will but ask yourself this, would you fight until ZI and beyond for what you felt was right? What about your friends and allies, will they? Regardless if you felt your previous actions were right or wrong, would you lick the boot of the opponent that stands over you if he told you to?

When gauging another group's probability of action, you have to look at the situation as they see it, not whether you think it's right or wrong. If TPF says that paying PC is a grievous despicable insult, then regardless of how any one else feels about it, regardless of if they are right or wrong, they will continue to operated under that frame of mind and continue to resist. In the long run that will be more detrimental to their enemies than to them.

Sure some people will quit, but nothing drives membership like being the underdog in a guerilla war. In the end, if TPF does not give up, they not only will be hardened by continuous conflict and sharpened by continuous strategizing, but others- agent provocateurs, spies, warriors, -will come to their side because they like the thrill, respect the resolve, so on, ect.

However, there is a solution, it can be found, it may already have been mentioned in one form or another. It could all end right now if people agree to reach out and see each other in a new light. But pointless debate won't make that happen.

Personally, I advocate the suggestion I provided above. Everybody wins.

Good luck to all parties involved.

I fought TPF earlier this war. I can say at least 4 of the 6 people I fought had no idea who Poison Clan was or why they should care. The silent majority (mostly for lack of caring or knowledge on how to approach the situation) obviously wants to continue going along how they were before this war. Not only that, but as I pointed out the "death ground" analysis is flawed as it is only a misplaced sense of pride holding them there instead of inevitable defeat.

I don't know if you're familiar with an alliance called the Federation of Armed Nations (FAN), but they did the guerrilla war that you suggest and merely existed as a non-entity until the existing power structure was toppled. All they did was visit these forums every once in a while and post nasty things about the people attacking them. So unless TPF wants to wait until everyone they're at war with is defeated in another war, they have no alternative but to sit at ZI.

[Fighter26]

It is not like the treaty you are whining about was signed out of mutual goodwill in the first place.

NAP, broken by an all out war- but it is okay because... There was a lack of mutual goodwill in the first place during signing? If either party did not wish to be part of a treaty (at the time before the war) any longer than they could have canceled. To suggest that the actions PC took were right is impossible. Stop taking examples from the past and look at the present situation. PC broke their own treaty, committed a aggressive war, and now demands reps. If you see nothing wrong with this don't even bother arguing for you are so predisposed on your position that it is not worth anyone's time.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Fighter26

[Cyan1979]

Imho, this really has nothing to do with treaty wording and everything to do with holding grudges. All it takes is a little humility from both sides and this will all end.

PC, TPF was your home once and you got your shots in, why not let them off with white peace? Yeah, yeah, we know they try to kill you off every chance they got. But where did you guys came from in the first place? There's nothing left to destroy anyways. Be the bigger man.

TPF, it was pretty clear you guys had it in for PC from the start. With Slayer gone now and no more allies left to defend, I really don't see why you guys can't communicate with PC and re-negotiate the terms. They're a fair bunch for the most part and will prob let you off if shown a little respect. You were comrades once. Why let petty grudges get the best of you?

I don't mean to preach, but why can't we just all get along until we build up, and nuke each other into oblivion in the next great war?

Edited July 27, 2009 by Cyan1979

[Tygaland]

NAP, broken by an all out war- but it is okay because... There was a lack of mutual goodwill in the first place during signing? If either party did not wish to be part of a treaty (at the time before the war) any longer than they could have canceled. To suggest that the actions PC took were right is impossible. Stop taking examples from the past and look at the present situation. PC broke their own treaty, committed a aggressive war, and now demands reps. If you see nothing wrong with this don't even bother arguing for you are so predisposed on your position that it is not worth anyone's time.

Try reading.

Where have I said I saw nothing wrong with PC breaking the treaty as they did? I haven't, so rather than putting words in my mouth try addressing what I actually said.

The fact of the matter is, a treaty or agreement can be broken or cancelled at anytime. I highly doubt PC rated that treaty at all considering the manner in which it was signed so you can't really be surprised they broke it or cancelled it the moment that the threat that forced them to sign it disappeared.

You can huff and puff all you like about the breaking of the treaty or whether it is right or wrong but it is not anything new and sure as hell won't be the last time it happens. As soon as consequences disappear then treaties or agreements signed under duress will the broken or cast aside.

So, as I said, if you can actually address what I actually said rather than creating something you can argue against then be my guest.

[SyndicatedINC]

It's because PC actually has this thing called integrity...

HAHAHAHA oh my that was a good one. I nearly split my side laughing so hard. I haven't had a laugh that good in a long while now. Thanks, I needed that, got to go share that with the buddies.

[xoindotnler]

HAHAHAHA oh my that was a good one. I nearly split my side laughing so hard. I haven't had a laugh that good in a long while now. Thanks, I needed that, got to go share that with the buddies.

I actually grabbed my English to Dutch translator to see if I wasn't making this up. Oh Admin my cheeks hurt .

[potato]

It was a general statement, no worries.

I was the original one that found the term channel, when I queried Archon over a mhawkonafricadrugs joke, and my NNS automatically whoises. It was a chan that kinda stuck out, and I thought it was a joke since it wasn't secret. The PC numbers were lower. I regret not screenshotting them. I think that if they added actual protection for TPF, since right now there is none, and if they took the California reps off, then these would be pretty reasonable and acceptable. Hopefully it can be negotiated to that point. I would understand that there's no reason to compromise feelings over Planet Bob Politics, [OOC](a game)[/OOC], so I think a negotiation could be reached easily, because in six months, no one will really remember this war anyway.

Actually, that's a lie. If we had wanted that chan to be super top secret, as you previously stated, we would have set the chan to +s and we wouldn't have used such an obvious name. The numbers PC gave us have NEVER been lower. Whether or not PC included the California reps in their own reps is an another problem but NEVER did they add reps to their initial offer. In fact, MK negociated them down so I would really appreciate it if you either proved your allegations or stopped lying.

[SyndicatedINC]

You know, I still haven't seen an answer as to what TPF's allies would do if the alliances they surrendered to were to suddenly lose their ability to enforce the terms. Would it suddenly be fine for them to reenter the war?

Hells no, in no manner is it "fine"! Though there may be no military consequences of such actions, there would be significant lack of honour in doing so.

Only able to speak for Avalon on this point, but I know if such a thing happened (nations outright violating their word to re-enter the karma war) we would have no part of it.

[NoFish]

I for one, eagerly await the formation of the TotalPhoenixstan! alliance. This doesn't look like it's getting worked out any time soon.

Edited July 27, 2009 by NoFish