TPF's Response to Terms Offered

[Chancellor Bismarck]

lol what a bunch of heretics. That's not at TPF, btw.

Good day to you all.

[TypoNinja]

Article 3: Cancellation

If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void.

You know what I see when I read that?

I see somebody who should lose his job. I don't know who wrote that treaty, and I don't know what his job is now, but christ, fire him.

[youwish959]

You reap what you sow. TPF signed this. Is what PC did the pinnacle of honor? 'Course not. But to put the blame on imagined 'e-lawyering' on their part is ridiculous. It isn't my fault that TPF didn't put the proper amount of thought and foresight into this treaty signing.

Once again elp, there was no non aggression/cancellation articles in the General's Protectorate. Soldier signed nothing.

[Narcicyst]

True enough, but this isn't about honour, it's about pride.

Well.... It's pretty much keeping values. Two values are being fulfilled here. The first, is honouring treaties. The second, is keeping their pride and never losing their respect for an alliance that dishonored the treaty.

OOC: lol. I freakin love this game's politics.

[astronaut jones]

Just because it's legal as per the treaty itself doesn't change what it is; !@#$%^&*, that's what. Yes, PC could do it, but it doesn't make it any better a move than if the treaty was worded differently.

Man, I hate having to say the same thing twice.

Except it was written by mhawk in such a way so that HE could break the treaty in much the same manner when he felt it best. So all this outrage is simply over the fact that PC found the loophole, and used it before mhawk and TPF had the opportunity.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I like OBM.

But TPF is heading towards disbandment or eternal war. We all know PC will not budge so lets not argue that. No middlemen alliances are going to be used because TPF is too proud for that.

Why is it so hard to just make PC pay for all the tech deals? It is going to help TPF because of this long $@! war in the end. Face it, You have a responsibility to get your membership out of this war along with any other remaining allies. Take any longer and all you'll have are Bama, OBM, and Mhawk on the TPF AA.

There won't even be a need for a govt much longer.

[TypoNinja]

lol what a bunch of heretics. That's not at TPF, btw.

Heretics? Thats interesting, either you've got the wrong word or you are being very clever. I'm not sure which yet.

[Sal Paradise]

The double standards game again...

Christ, if I have to see that image one more time, I'm going to.... well continue to ignore unlike this one time I'm addressing it. It's not an argument. Just an emo fit.

Edited July 25, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[Commisar Gaunt]

PC violated the spirit of the treaty when they found this clever loophole.

I can understand how TPF can be mad, but this is why you should always write clear, concise, and complete treaties

[Locke]

Man, I hate having to say the same thing twice.

Except it was written by mhawk in such a way so that HE could break the treaty in much the same manner when he felt it best. So all this outrage is simply over the fact that PC found the loophole, and used it before mhawk and TPF had the opportunity.

I read that. It really don't matter. If TPF pulled it, I'd be saying the exact same thing, only pointed at them. What matters is the actions here. People can plot a lot of things and make decisions behind closed doors, but what matters is what actually happens.

[OneBallMan]

Let's be honest..If TPF found and used the loop hole like it was word too we would see a bunch of trolls from TPF claiming it is no big deal, you found the loop hole and for PC to "deal with it". So, take your own advice and maybe next time word your treaties right.

Here's to Poison Clan hope you guys double the reparations and rub it in TPF face a little more.

You're right. And I'd be embarrassed and disgusted as would most of our "silent" members.

And I'd leave the alliance again over crap like that.

[kerschbs]

I know how much TPF hates PC. I was part of the alliance when they were ready to go to war. I find it understandable that you don't want to pay them reps, I know what it is like to hate your opponents. However I still think that TPF should accept these terms. Swallow your pride, be the bigger people, and get your membership and allies peace. Continuing to fight, while somewhat admirable, is not the best course of actions here. I wish the best to TPF, it pains me to see so many of my friends still in war. I know you Mhawk, your a good guy, please take the terms.

[Chancellor Bismarck]

Heretics? Thats interesting, either you've got the wrong word or you are being very clever. I'm not sure which yet.

It doesn't concern me whether you understand it or not. Those that do will get a chuckle, though it won't be because it's funny. I won't bother to lay it out for you, so the point is moot.

[Sandwich Controversy]

I like OBM.

But TPF is heading towards disbandment or eternal war. We all know PC will not budge so lets not argue that. No middlemen alliances are going to be used because TPF is too proud for that.

Why is it so hard to just make PC pay for all the tech deals? It is going to help TPF because of this long $@! war in the end. Face it, You have a responsibility to get your membership out of this war along with any other remaining allies. Take any longer and all you'll have are Bama, OBM, and Mhawk on the TPF AA.

There won't even be a need for a govt much longer.

I don't think you "get" TPF-PC relations.

[Felix von Agnu]

Except it was written by mhawk in such a way so that HE could break the treaty in much the same manner when he felt it best. So all this outrage is simply over the fact that PC found the loophole, and used it before mhawk and TPF had the opportunity.

Oh how wrong you are. It was a mistake by someone who never has actually written a NAP before. The intent of that part was basically to state the obvious, one one party were to attack the other the whole pact is gone.

Even assuming you were right, there would be no less outrage if TPF pulled the same stunt PC did.

[PrototyoeRuler]

You're right. And I'd be embarrassed and disgusted as would most of our "silent" members.

And I'd leave the alliance again over crap like that.

Theirs your problem, silence is not always a good thing. Maybe you should of spoke out more...like when the treaty was signed in the first place.

And, you guys are taking this whole PC thing way to far. There great people, the just like causing a little bit of trouble. You need to just pay the money and regrow and show them whats what. Now you are doing what everyone wants, you to stunt your growth and PC wins. You guys need a new leader... I am free Monday and Wednesday if you guys really wanna be a success

[astronaut jones]

PC violated the spirit of the treaty when they found this clever loophole.

I can understand how TPF can be mad, but this is why you should always write clear, concise, and complete treaties

Do I really have to say the same thing three times?

Mhawk deliberately wrote the treaty as such so that he could use the same loophole to attack PC at a time of his choosing. The people who run PC aren't stupid, they knew what they were signing just as much as TPF knew what they were signing, and making (yes, making) PC sign.

PC found the loophole, and used it before TPF had the opportunity. That's where the outrage is from, not that PC violated the treaty, but that TPF didn't get the opportunity to violate it.

So TPF and her allies have attempted to use this as a way to slander PCs name, I won't say good name because PC really wasn't built to even HAVE a good name, though in continuing to try and slander them, that's only pissed PC off more. PC, since day one, has been hounded by TPF, constantly threatened, constantly told "we COULD kill you, but we wont" and they're trying to further damage PCs name with a treaty mhawk wrote because TPFs purpose for the treaty was found out and used against them.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

I don't think you "get" TPF-PC relations.

I think I have a clear picture of the relations. It's just that TPF insists on not paying these reps due to the relations. Sooner or later this is not going to end well and TPF will either disband or cripple itself completely. In the end PC is going to have won.

At the moment TPF can live to fight another day.

[Centurius]

I took a look at PC's declaration of war. They cited this:

Article 3: Cancellation

If either party breaks the pact, it is considered null and void.

You're saying its PC's fault that you agreed to a horribly worded treaty? They took advantage of your wording. This is what all this !@#$%^&* about "e-lawyering" is about? You can try to cover your behinds all you want, but its not going to get you anywhere. Think before you put the pen to paper.

Then word your treaties better. Don't blame everyone else when something like this comes back to bite you. If I worded my treaties poorly and someone used it to their advantage I have no one to blame but myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7p4mioawIA

The paper and ink a treaty is written on means nothing, it is the spirit behind the signing. The same clause could have been used weeks if not months earlier to cancel relations with TPF if they weren't genuine about non agression. However cancelling it to declare war is an insult to all genuine treaties and a disgrace for the Alliance using the tactic. With the circumstances around it it just proves PC was looking for a good tech raid one where they lost more than they hoped for.

WRONG.

You followed an ally in an aggressive war, they fact that they $%&@ed up and jumped into a losing war instead of one more curb stomp like usual is the irrelevant part.

You were not defending an ally, you were backing an ally in an aggressive action. Even with your backing they still lost. Sad, wait. No its not.

You are not the good guys in this piece, you can follow a treaty, bravo for you. Would you like a medal for making sure you feed your kids too? You don't get bonus points of acting correctly. What you do get is responsibility for actions, including what treaties you hold. What you did was choose to hold a treaty of aggression with an alliance known for a history of attacking people.

Funny that definition wasn't used for Alliances declaring war in Defense in the noCB war.

[He Who Has No Name]

I predict posting this thread will not improve the situation for your alliance, TPF.

Also, your insistence of fixating on treaty obligations is a sign that you truly gulped Pacifica's koolaid. Treaties don't mean $#!+ and anybody who ever honestly believed they did was (ahem) "deluded".

Edited July 25, 2009 by He Who Has No Name

[astronaut jones]

Oh how wrong you are. It was a mistake by someone who never has actually written a NAP before. The intent of that part was basically to state the obvious, one one party were to attack the other the whole pact is gone.

Even assuming you were right, there would be no less outrage if TPF pulled the same stunt PC did.

There would be less outrage, because it was written as such to be used at a time that TPF could steamroll PC with the help of about 6-8 of her allies. It would have been a curbstomp by TPF against PC, if they had gotten the opportunity to use that clause of the treaty as intended, and as someone else said in this thread already, PC would have been told to "suck it up" or "deal with it" if they brought up TPF violating the terms of the treaty.

So..

Suck it up, and deal with it.

[Sandwich Controversy]

I think I have a clear picture of the relations. It's just that TPF insists on not paying these reps due to the relations. Sooner or later this is not going to end well and TPF will either disband or cripple itself completely. In the end PC is going to have won.

At the moment TPF can live to fight another day.

I suppose I should have narrowed down the quote to the "tech deals" part. PC is never, ever going to help TPF rebuild, and I don't blame them one bit.

[Felix von Agnu]

There would be less outrage, because it was written as such to be used at a time that TPF could steamroll PC with the help of about 6-8 of her allies. It would have been a curbstomp by TPF against PC, if they had gotten the opportunity to use that clause of the treaty as intended, and as someone else said in this thread already, PC would have been told to "suck it up" or "deal with it" if they brought up TPF violating the terms of the treaty.

So..

Suck it up, and deal with it.

It was written at a time TPF could have rolled PC with 6-8 of their allies.

[ChairmanHal]

It isn't quite exactly the same as this treaty was mainly an NAP that to my ecollection PC was forced to sign to avoid being rolled. The clause was a very lame one at that, and it works both ways. I imagine it crossed TPF's mind at least once to use the clause for their own needs, as they were the ones who would benefit from it at the time it was signed. It is actually quite ironic that it came back to haunt them in the long run.

The lesson to be learned here folks is don't write stupid clauses, I'm looking at you too MHA. You signed the treaty TPF, should know what you are getting into.

Oh it's worse than that.

I heard PC referred to once as "\m/ Lite", with all the negative connotations that comes with that. They have been described, on the OWF and elsewhere, as being sneaky, evil, not above raiding their grandmother's nation, untrustworthy. Mind you this is not me speaking, it is the opinion of others. As for my own opinion, Ragnarok was treatied with PC during my time there and ultimately we canceled because we didn't feel like we should be associated with them. As Tri, I saw them as a potential ally for the coming war with NPO. Warriors are always useful.

Knowing what the general reputation PC was before the war, I have to ask the important and embarrassing question:

Why the hell did TPF trust them to live up to the spirit of the treaty in the first place?

[Captain Flinders]

The Phoenix Federation entered this war in defense of an ally that was attacked. That our ally was attacked in an aggressive war is irrelevant.

Not off to a good start. NPO threw the first punch. They were in an offensive war.

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.

This coming from a member of the CoC. Are you just ignoring some parts of history to make your point sound better? You canceled on NPO when they got hit remember?

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.

Again, you're forgetting that TPF did this in this same war as well. You canceled a treaty and resigned without without any adherence to cancellation clauses within roughly 24 hours (if memory serves). You "e-lawyered" yourself into the war just fine. But apparently it's a terrible thing for other to do the same, by your definition mind you.

Grow the hell up.

@PC: Don't take this crap from these jokers. I probably don't have to remind you guys of how they used their power. It's time they payed the piper.