TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Edward Cullen]

Posting in this thread has a marked increase in flaming over the last couple pages. If you can't play nicely, the thread will be closed.

[Trigger]

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

Corrected the bolded part for you.

[Haflinger]

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.

Agreed about the loophole. Also, it did have a cancellation clause. The duration on the cancellation clause was 10 days of no fighting.

The presence of the cancellation clause is an indication that the treaty was not intended to be cancelled in the way it was.

[Logan]

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.

I don't find myself agreeing with the disbandment bit, but you are spot on with this being one of the most disgraceful and pitiful displays I believe I have ever seen.

[Matthew Conrad]

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.)

Considering the fact that I said neither side could definitively prove of misdoing on the writing of the treaty, you should perhaps, for the I don't know 5th time, actually read what I wrote. The fact that I actually took my own quote and gave it to you in my previous response to you apparently doesn't quite do it. I really don't know what else I can do besides repeatedly remind you to maybe browse over the content you're actually responding to.

The reason I thought it was referring to me is because the post you responded to was quoting and responding to one of my posts. Please keep your horrible analogies to yourself and use some actual logic next time. I know it's crazy! I thought you were addressing me when quoting a post directly addressing my statements!

EDIT: This is the second time I distinctly remember you trying to fit in that analogy. It didn't work the first time, it doesn't make sense now. Please be more creative?

Edited July 28, 2009 by Matthew Conrad

[OneBallMan]

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.

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.

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

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?

As much as this pains me, and it does, you are right. I actually was reading pezstar's words and assigning them to you. That said, I would like to replace the word I assigned you from hate to dislike.

You have repeatedly said that PC was in the wrong on the issue at hand, you've not justified their actions. Others have. I am sorry for assigning you that.

OBM

[Tygaland]

As much as this pains me, and it does, you are right. I actually was reading pezstar's words and assigning them to you. That said, I would like to replace the word I assigned you from hate to dislike.

You have repeatedly said that PC was in the wrong on the issue at hand, you've not justified their actions. Others have. I am sorry for assigning you that.

OBM

Apology accepted.

[Starcraftmazter]

I think Black is the new Red.

You best be stating controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant nonsense with the primary intent of provoking other rulers into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal discussion, sir.

[Kilkenny]

Considering the fact that I said neither side could definitively prove of misdoing on the writing of the treaty, you should perhaps, for the I don't know 5th time, actually read what I wrote. The fact that I actually took my own quote and gave it to you in my previous response to you apparently doesn't quite do it. I really don't know what else I can do besides repeatedly remind you to maybe browse over the content you're actually responding to.

The reason I thought it was referring to me is because the post you responded to was quoting and responding to one of my posts. Please keep your horrible analogies to yourself and use some actual logic next time. I know it's crazy! I thought you were addressing me when quoting a post directly addressing my statements!

EDIT: This is the second time I distinctly remember you trying to fit in that analogy. It didn't work the first time, it doesn't make sense now. Please be more creative?

Ok, how about this one. I acuse you of thinking that all my citizens run around wearing bathrobes all day. I am not going to prove this, I know. I just know that is what you are thinking. Now, you offer proof you weren't.

You see, that is where we are at. We are being told that since we have not offered proof of thoughts and plans (that do not exist) that you are being wishywashy?? Political?? however you want to refer to it.

But here is the thing, where did the other side get this info?? If they made it up, then there is no proof. If they were told this, got screen shots of our evil plans, logs, whatever, then they have proof. Where is the proof?? The closest that anyone has to proof is quating VanHoo saying he could log dump. He was told to go ahead and dump and yet didn't. In talk with Mhawk, it came out that the source of his knowledge really had no knowledge, just this "Iknow" thing going on. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the accuseers, not with us esp since you really can't prove not having thoughts.

But yet still want proof from us, again back to what you and quite a few others are doing. You actually don't mind that they did it while on your side, you just don't want to say so incase it becomes a major problem later that you support them. So you ask us to prove we weren't planning this, which we can't cause we weren't. Thing is, that eveyone knows full well that had TPF done something like this, you and everyone on here would be crucifying us over it. That is actually the amusing part. Double standards FTW

Although as a side note i realize you will prob just side step making a definite statement again, as such statement would likely come back to haunt you in the future no matter what you say. Maybe in the future instead of trying to say something without saying anything, saying nothing will work better. Although I would like to hear a straight answer, I realize that I most likely won't.

edit: side note

Edited July 28, 2009 by Kilkenny

[mushi]

But here is the thing, where did the other side get this info?? If they made it up, then there is no proof. If they were told this, got screen shots of our evil plans, logs, whatever, then they have proof. Where is the proof?? The closest that anyone has to proof is quating VanHoo saying he could log dump. He was told to go ahead and dump and yet didn't. In talk with Mhawk, it came out that the source of his knowledge really had no knowledge, just this "Iknow" thing going on. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the accuseers, not with us esp since you really can't prove not having thoughts.

We dont and never will nor never have spied on TPF. Its not the way we roll, but enough people in the power circle of CN have tipped us off about it. Also you guys dont know how to keep quite and make it obvious your planning an attack.

[Haflinger]

We dont and never will nor never have spied on TPF. Its not the way we roll, but enough people in the power circle of CN have tipped us off about it. Also you guys dont know how to keep quite and make it obvious your planning an attack.

You have consistently refused to produce any evidence whatsoever in support of these claims, other than citing the rumour mill as you do here.

[Seerow]

Wait you need solid proof to know an alliance that hates you is going to want to roll you?

To think, all those years that MK was afraid NPO was going to roll them for no reason, it was all just a part of the rumor mill, a huge hoax! At least, I never saw any direct proof of NPO and co planning a specific attack on the Kingdom. :iiam:

[BamaBuc]

We dont and never will nor never have spied on TPF. Its not the way we roll, but enough people in the power circle of CN have tipped us off about it. Also you guys dont know how to keep quite and make it obvious your planning an attack.

In other words, "we heard it through the grapevine." I've heard all sorts of rumors over the years, many of which turned out to be crap. I'm still waiting for evidence here.

-Bama

Edited July 28, 2009 by BamaBuc

[Haflinger]

Wait you need solid proof to know an alliance that hates you is going to want to roll you?

Yes, when the counterargument is "We were completely isolated, with no treaties, vastly outgunned, and they didn't roll us."

The circumstantial evidence is pretty solidly against the claim that mhawk wanted to roll PC.

[Matthew Conrad]

Ok, how about this one. I acuse you of thinking that all my citizens run around wearing bathrobes all day. I am not going to prove this, I know. I just know that is what you are thinking. Now, you offer proof you weren't.

You see, that is where we are at. We are being told that since we have not offered proof of thoughts and plans (that do not exist) that you are being wishywashy?? Political?? however you want to refer to it.

But here is the thing, where did the other side get this info?? If they made it up, then there is no proof. If they were told this, got screen shots of our evil plans, logs, whatever, then they have proof. Where is the proof?? The closest that anyone has to proof is quating VanHoo saying he could log dump. He was told to go ahead and dump and yet didn't. In talk with Mhawk, it came out that the source of his knowledge really had no knowledge, just this "Iknow" thing going on. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with the accuseers, not with us esp since you really can't prove not having thoughts.

But yet still want proof from us, again back to what you and quite a few others are doing. You actually don't mind that they did it while on your side, you just don't want to say so incase it becomes a major problem later that you support them. So you ask us to prove we weren't planning this, which we can't cause we weren't. Thing is, that eveyone knows full well that had TPF done something like this, you and everyone on here would be crucifying us over it. That is actually the amusing part. Double standards FTW

Although as a side note i realize you will prob just side step making a definite statement again, as such statement would likely come back to haunt you in the future no matter what you say. Maybe in the future instead of trying to say something without saying anything, saying nothing will work better. Although I would like to hear a straight answer, I realize that I most likely won't.

edit: side note

Did you read my quote? I specifically stated I think PC should have activated the regular cancellation clause wherein they notify you and not attacked for 10 days (or whatever the cancellation period was). This is unless proof emerges that TPF intentionally planted the odd wording of the clause. I asked both sides to show some evidence because at this point it's speculation as to the original intent of the writer. You expect me to make an absolutely definitive stance without substantive evidence? I should hope that you don't jump to conclusions as easy as you expect me to.

[flak attack]

Wait, are people asking to see evidence that PC didn't spy on TPF?

[Matthew Conrad]

Wait, are people asking to see evidence that PC didn't spy on TPF?

If so, that's pretty unreasonable.

[OneBallMan]

Did you read my quote? I specifically stated I think PC should have activated the regular cancellation clause wherein they notify you and not attacked for 10 days (or whatever the cancellation period was). This is unless proof emerges that TPF intentionally planted the odd wording of the clause. I asked both sides to show some evidence because at this point it's speculation as to the original intent of the writer. You expect me to make an absolutely definitive stance without substantive evidence? I should hope that you don't jump to conclusions as easy as you expect me to.

I can speak authoritatively that the wording was a screw up. I think you can gauge by our actions upto and including this war that we kinda take the words seriously. No one on our side is/was clever enough to plant something like that in the hopes of being in a legal position to roll an alliance. There are/were so many easier and less painful ways to do it. We've had, as have PC had more than enough reason to go at each other, PC just took a cheap and less honorable way in, imho. I find it amusing that the alliance that spawned the Greenacres Doctrine didn't see fit to use it.

I do also want to acknowledge what you've said about PC's actions.

[potato]

Did you notice the wording before signing it though?

[JBone]

Wait, are people asking to see evidence that PC didn't spy on TPF?

No, I think the "evidence" talk is refering to TPF secret evil plan to abuse the NAP loophole, because it is way easier to isolate someone, have a CB that most of the world would have cheered on (loudly), rally the majority of tC.......THEN sign a treaty, in hopes of activating said loophole sometime, later, maybe, down the road.....yea, that makes sense.

wer smert

[astronaut jones]

No, I think the "evidence" talk is refering to TPF secret evil plan to abuse the NAP loophole, because it is way easier to isolate someone, have a CB that most of the world would have cheered on (loudly), rally the majority of tC.......THEN sign a treaty, in hopes of activating said loophole sometime, later, maybe, down the road.....yea, that makes sense.

wer smert

You are the only one who would ever accuse TPF of being smart.

[Bob Janova]

Arguing about PC's conduct re the NAP seems like it's better suited to three months ago in their DoW thread – it seems a pretty silly reason to reject terms offered to you today.

[OneBallMan]

Did you notice the wording before signing it though?

Hell no.

Is that strong enough for you? If I had, and foreseen the consequences, we'd have reworded. I have written, reviewed and inputted on hundreds of treaties in my time here on Bob. Putting trapdoors in is as stupid as making a treaty unbreakable.

It has been said that this treaty was written from scratch by someone who had never written a treaty before. That is very true. It was also rushed and didn't get the microscopic review that every single treaty that TPF will ever even consider will get moving forward.

My logic of no-ill will flows from my extended dealings with CTB over the years. You have to remember that PC was in the downdog position when this treaty was signed, and was exposed to the same wording that he so artfully suspended morality to flip back on us. You seriously think that CTB would have allowed such craptastic language to leave PC totally exposed? I imagine one day, smart guy that he is, he went back and read the treaty, to prep for cancelling it, and noticed the language. Voila! Knife in our side.

[deth2munkies]

Why are people still discussing whether or not PC "broke" the treaty? You can e-lawyer it all over if you want, but in cases like this, it's merely the ones that have power that end up being "right" because it's a gray area. It's completely irrelevant to the actual issue. The actual issue is that TPF has leaders that would hold a grudge over the well-being of their citizens, which is appalling to say the least.

[Logan]

Arguing about PC's conduct re the NAP seems like it's better suited to three months ago in their DoW thread – it seems a pretty silly reason to reject terms offered to you today.

You know how TPF is now in days, misplaced pride above freedom.