TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[R&R-Viking]

Huh? All he basically said is "listen, if you guys want to fight us so bad, just cancel the treaty."

-Bama

That's not what he said, he said he was looking for understanding, that he would accept their position regarding Slayer, and that it all happened before his time. With a war threat thrown in for god knows why.

[astronaut jones]

Actually JBone the point of the NAP was not to save PC from the billion of alliances that wanted us dead (and probably still might). The NAP would of done nothing to prevent them from attacking, since the clause in TC only counts if there is mandatory defense in the treaty. Besides our old MDoAP with Valhalla already protected us from attacks from TC alliances (unless to say of course an alliance went to them and tried to get them to drop the treaty in order to roll us).

No, no it didn't. It wasn't renewed, it was a false sense of security that they had valhalla not "cancel" so you'd feel safe when really you were anything but. When the time came, they'd have just said "look at the last clause? yeah, 3 month renewal? never renewed it. There was no treaty"

hooray!

[BamaBuc]

Glad you came around

I think you miss the point. It wasn't about logic, it was about our word.

-Bama

[Kung Fu Geeks]

I'm sorry, I suppose I didn't make myself clear enough. You forced that treaty upon PC at gunpoint. They had no moral or ethical duty to honor that sham of a treaty.

...

So...

what about surrender terms then? do you think its perfectly ok to violate surrender terms as soon as one has a good opportunity? Are surrender terms a sham? The defeated have no moral or ethical duty to honor them?

Because basically thats exactly what surrender terms are, a treaty signed under duress that states one side will stop attacking if the other side fulfills certain conditions.

[der_ko]

Um....that's been done before, ask Ivan, and it actually turned out quite well, for a good long while.

Fortunely for us, you're no Ivan and TPF are no NPO. You will swallow your pride or you shall have no peace. We've got all the time in the world.

[jimbacher]

Fortunely for us, you're no Ivan and TPF are no NPO. You will swallow your pride or you shall have no peace. We've got all the time in the world.

How about you read this page. TPF didn't force terms at gunpoint onto PC, so why should PC be rewarded for breaking a NAP.

[Lord GVChamp]

Fortunely for us, you're no Ivan and TPF are no NPO. You will swallow your pride or you shall have no peace. We've got all the time in the world.

You're fighting an alliance you supposedly don't want to fight, you don't have nearly the hegemony that NPO or GOONS did when they had their eternal wars, and you're fighting an alliance that the majority of Planet Bob leaders seem to openly disdain.

I'm not quite sure you can categorize your position as "having all the time world"

[JBone]

So you're telling us that we should learn from the CoaLUEtion and let you dictate terms? I would have you ask them how it turned out but because of their mistake then they are no longer with us.

Actually it turned out ok for the side that did the dictating.......we are just asking for an adjustment to realistic, no demands, no shame, just fairness for all.

I know we don't get to demand that.....but we are asking.

[Tygaland]

...

So...

what about surrender terms then? do you think its perfectly ok to violate surrender terms as soon as one has a good opportunity? Are surrender terms a sham? The defeated have no moral or ethical duty to honor them?

Because basically thats exactly what surrender terms are, a treaty signed under duress that states one side will stop attacking if the other side fulfills certain conditions.

I'm pretty sure a number of alliances would throw off surrender terms if those policing them were removed as a threat.

[BamaBuc]

I'm pretty sure a number of alliances would throw off surrender terms if those policing them were removed as a threat.

Doesn't make it okay. In such a case, they ought to either work out an end to the terms or else stick by them. They gave their word... No one can force anyone to do that.

-Bama

[JBone]

Actually JBone the point of the NAP was not to save PC from the billion of alliances that wanted us dead (and probably still might). The NAP would of done nothing to prevent them from attacking, since the clause in TC only counts if there is mandatory defense in the treaty. Besides our old MDoAP with Valhalla already protected us from attacks from TC alliances (unless to say of course an alliance went to them and tried to get them to drop the treaty in order to roll us).

The Val treaty was gone....long before our NAP came to be.

Just the fact that a tC AA.....TPF, had a treaty with PC was enough to stem any and all desire to kill PC.

Well, not desire, and not any and all....truth be told, you guys, and all the rest of the PINK POS that are tied to you will be gone sooner than you know.

....and any BS terms we get, well I guess they fall by the wayside.

[Tygaland]

Doesn't make it okay. In such a case, they ought to either work out an end to the terms or else stick by them. They gave their word... No one can force anyone to do that.

-Bama

Never said it did, but I doubt a prisoner would stay in his cell if the door was unlocked and the wardens had left and weren't coming back.

Most peace terms have an end date whereas a treaty like the NAP in question doesn't.

Again, before the mouth-breathers come knocking, I do not condone how PC went about getting rid of the treaty.

[BamaBuc]

Never said it did, but I doubt a prisoner would stay in his cell if the door was unlocked and the wardens had left and weren't coming back.

Most peace terms have an end date whereas a treaty like the NAP in question doesn't.

Again, before the mouth-breathers come knocking, I do not condone how PC went about getting rid of the treaty.

For one, a prisoner doesn't choose to go into his cell. Here on Bob, no one can force you to sign your name to anything. You always have a choice. Second, there was no gun pointed at PC. As stated by myself and confirmed by Pooksland of PC:

As for the NAP, check your facts. Everyone (myself included) has been acting under the assumption that the NAP was pushed on PC as a surrender term. I went back and looked, and that's not the case. The NAP was part of an agreement to let PC out of surrender terms early. I guess you could say it was forced in that PC would otherwise have stayed under terms... But there was no gun pointed at their head.

-Bama

I actually just went and doubled checked my logs and I will confirm this fact. The NAP was signed to let PC off of the remaining surrender terms early, although I didnt find some other interesting things.

The NAP in question did have an end date: 10 days from when one signatory gave notice to the other.

-Bama

[JBone]

you realize that a NAP protects them in no way right?

it just says you won't fight them, it doesn't say anything about any other alliance.

So you forced a treaty on them, not for their protection, but for your convenience

TPF was a respected member of the most powerful bloc on the planet.......no AA outside of that block would have violated that NAP out of fear......no AA inside that block would have violated it out of respect.....ya get it now?

[JBone]

Never said it did, but I doubt a prisoner would stay in his cell if the door was unlocked and the wardens had left and weren't coming back.

Most peace terms have an end date whereas a treaty like the NAP in question doesn't.

Again, before the mouth-breathers come knocking, I do not condone how PC went about getting rid of the treaty.

Tyga......it had a 10 day cancellation clause, like many other treaties....that many other alliances sign.

How can you say it had no end date?

10 days is a much shorter span than most "reasonable" term encompass....no?

[Tygaland]

For one, a prisoner doesn't choose to go into his cell. Here on Bob, no one can force you to sign your name to anything. You always have a choice.

Yes, with peace terms it is accept terms or die. So, with the prisoner analogy it is accept a prison sentence of a few months or continue to be slowly beaten to death until you accept that sentence.

Second, there was no gun pointed at PC. As stated by myself and confirmed by Pooksland of PC:

I actually just went and doubled checked my logs and I will confirm this fact. The NAP was signed to let PC off of the remaining surrender terms early, although I didnt find some other interesting things.

The NAP in question did have an end date: 10 days from when one signatory gave notice to the other.

-Bama

That is not an end date. The treaty was open ended until one of both parties wanted out. Unlike peace terms which do have an end date. I'm not overly interested in an circular argument over semantics.

The point of the matter is that if someone does not want to be beholden to an agreement and are only holding onto the agreement because of the ramifications of breaking or cancelling the agreement, then they will break/cancel the agreement once those ramifications are no longer an issue. This is what happened in this case. I'm not saying they went about it the right way but I can see their reasons for getting rid of the treaty one way or another.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Tygaland

[Tygaland]

Tyga......it had a 10 day cancellation clause, like many other treaties....that many other alliances sign.

How can you say it had no end date?

10 days is a much shorter span than most "reasonable" term encompass....no?

What date was the treaty due to expire? I don't see an expiry date in the treaty. Cancellation notice =/= expiry date.

Are you telling me that TPF would have allowed PC to give notice immediately after signing a NAP to get out of terms earlier? With no ramifications at all? Really?

Why didn't PC do this if this were true?

[BamaBuc]

Yes, with peace terms it is accept terms or die. So, with the prisoner analogy it is accept a prison sentence of a few months or continue to be slowly beaten to death until you accept that sentence.

That is not an end date. The treaty was open ended until one of both parties wanted out. Unlike peace terms which do have an end date. I'm not overly interested in an circular argument over semantics.

The point of the matter is that if someone does not want to be beholden to an agreement and are only holding onto the agreement because of the ramifications of breaking or cancelling the agreement, then they will break/cancel the agreement once those ramifications are no longer an issue. This is what happened in this case. I'm not saying they went about it the right way but I can see their reasons for getting rid of the treaty one way or another.

Just as no one can force you to give your word here, no one can kill you here. Though I get what you're saying.

Cancellation periods are how most treaties are set up to end, no? The end date was whenever one of the alliances wanted out. I don't see how that's semantics... The treaty wasn't eternal. Whether it's set up to end by cancellation or on a certain date doesn't really matter.

Agreed. Would've been nice if they'd honored their word and just waited the 10 days, but it's no secret they wanted to fight us.

-Bama

[Alterego]

Most peace terms have an end date whereas a treaty like the NAP in question doesn't.

What date was the treaty due to expire? I don't see an expiry date in the treaty. Cancellation notice =/= expiry date.

It was better than peace terms because unlike peace terms both parties could decide when to end it.

[JBone]

What date was the treaty due to expire? I don't see an expiry date in the treaty. Cancellation notice =/= expiry date.

Are you telling me that TPF would have allowed PC to give notice immediately after signing a NAP to get out of terms earlier? With no ramifications at all? Really?

Why didn't PC do this if this were true?

I am telling you that TPF would have gladly let PC "out" of that treaty 10 days after it was signed.......as per the cancellation clause.

They didn't do it because it left them unprotected.....as was explained earlier in the thread.

Your usually good at the whole devils advocate thing....this time, not so much. Not your fault, just a loosing cause.

[Tygaland]

Just as no one can force you to give your word here, no one can kill you here. Though I get what you're saying.

Alliances can be killed. But I'm glad the point I am making got through.

Cancellation periods are how most treaties are set up to end, no? The end date was whenever one of the alliances wanted out. I don't see how that's semantics... The treaty wasn't eternal. Whether it's set up to end by cancellation or on a certain date doesn't really matter.

The treaty is eternal if there are negative reactions from the other signatory if the treaty is cancelled.

Agreed. Would've been nice if they'd honored their word and just waited the 10 days, but it's no secret they wanted to fight us.

-Bama

Maybe they figured you'd get your allies to take them out pre-emptively if they gave you a 10 day heads-up.

[Tygaland]

I am telling you that TPF would have gladly let PC "out" of that treaty 10 days after it was signed.......as per the cancellation clause.

They didn't do it because it left them unprotected.....as was explained earlier in the thread.

Your usually good at the whole devils advocate thing....this time, not so much. Not your fault, just a loosing cause.

Unprotected from who? You?

I'm not devil's advocate for anythign or anyone. I'm saying if they did not value the treaty at all then they had no reason to hang on to it. They could have and perhaps should have given 10 days notice but that is their decision and they probably have their reasons.

It was better than peace terms because unlike peace terms both parties could decide when to end it.

Well done, you have now identified one difference between peace terms and a NAP.

[BamaBuc]

Alliances can be killed. But I'm glad the point I am making got through.

The treaty is eternal if there are negative reactions from the other signatory if the treaty is cancelled.

Maybe they figured you'd get your allies to take them out pre-emptively if they gave you a 10 day heads-up.

Alliances still have to choose to disband. If the members choose to stand together they can't be destroyed (see FAN).

I don't think our allies were in much of a position to take anyone out at that point.

-Bama

[JBone]

Unprotected from who? You?.

No, we actually wanted to befreind them....they were born from us.

From NPO and Gre mostly........and any AA outside of tC that wanted to see them killed.

There were/are quite a few out there.

EDIT: quote tags.

Edited July 30, 2009 by JBone

[mushi]

Jbone sorry to burst your bubble, but before the NAP was signed PC had a few MDoAP's. So the NAP wasnt really protecting us. Also that NAP wouldn't have saved us from attacks.