OneBallMan Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 As promised. Love to my peeps in MK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master-Debater Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 This is pretty funny actually. TPF is trying to play the victim of a treaty they wrote. You would think that with how many people you had in TPF at the time of signing don’t you think that maybe one member might…..just might…..have said “Hey guys. Anyone remember the GW era when NAPs were laughed at as people went to war with their treaty partners? Don’t you think this could come back to hurt us?” PC found the loophole that mhawk wrote into the treaty and used it before you guys did. Whoops, that one didn’t work out to well for you did it? You guys are the only ones to blame for getting yourselves into this situation anyways. Circumstances of the war or not, you signed a bad treaty and got attacked. You have lost and have been given just incredibly light terms compared to some of the surrender terms. What happens next is up to TPF. You can either keep being stubborn and hard headed and refuse to pay PC reps which will cause you to lose more members, more NS, and keep your remaining allies in a state of war indefinitely. Or you can stop complaining and pay up. I’m sure PC is happy either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Baby Eater Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 The ironic part of this is that if it was the NPO holding TPF at war for three months then requiring fairly sizable terms from a war torn and shattered alliance, we'd probably hearing these same people arguing for the terms proclaiming how evil the NPO was for doing such to an alliance that entered the war knowing full well what would happen just to support an ally. You can't play the "We're fighting for an end to curbstomps and heavy reparations... and we'll get around to trying that right after we get done getting our heavy reperations from this curbstomp" game and honestly not expect people to call a spade a spade there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 This is pretty funny actually. TPF is trying to play the victim of a treaty they wrote. When is a NAP not a NAP? When it has a clause that cancels it in case of aggression. Even that isn't the problem. That problem is that they trusted an alliance with a shaky rep in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Sorry to say it TPF but at this point you will just be sitting in peace mode to get sniped should you come out. Your longtime enemies in PC due to the hatreds involved have more to gain by seeing you kept down in peace mode then by taking the tech. Either way they do win in this and they do get the last laugh during this war. You have to concede that fact and decide whether you want to get out of the war with PC laughing at you or do you want to stay in the war with PC laughing at you. Tough choice either way, I know but in the end I do believe their really is only one choice that makes sense and I do not see how you guys can exert enough political pressure or military pressure to make these alliances fighting you decide to step down. They want the PR of not having changed original terms while those fighting NPO did. In some circles I guess that is a big deal although I dont know why personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 These surrender terms lack all members having to denounce phoenix worshipping white supremacy and disband. Paying reps is $%&@all compared to the crap you've enforced on others. Get over yourselves. I type well while drunk, i am awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneBallMan Posted July 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 You assume, and it is an assumption that has $800M in consequences for those due to receive waht we've agreed to pay. That assumption? That we'd even have an alliance if we agreed to pay PC a dime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffron X Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 And trust me, we are stoned Tee hee. Anyway, yeah, I had always suspected that PC were scum. Their... vocal-ness about their tech raiding made me suspicious. It seems I was correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 TPF could have broken the treaty PC Did. Those are not equal. And what I'm saying is, boo hoo for you, suck it up, deal with it. Your intentions were very clear when that treaty was signed and written, they merely did what you were going to do all along, before you even had the chance. That's where your outrage is from. It's not "how dare they violate the terms of the treaty!" it's "how dare they violate the terms of the treay before us!" Very big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I honestly think that if TPF is to pay reps to PC, then part of the terms should be that PC pays their 120 million reps to California first, which California still hasn't seen a cent of from when PC raided the TPF protectorates during the war. Then I believe PC should add 120million in reps to the 20000 tech they should get, and another 80 million for an inappropriate use of their aid slots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israfeel Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So wait, this was a NAP they felt they could cancel and declare on the said alliance immediately? This serves as a lesson for treaty wording but this was a NAP, what the hell is the point of it if you can immediately cancel and declare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 ElP, you and I will not agree much on well, much of anything. But on this we agree. As I said at the time, I don't really give a rat's anal glands that PC e-lawyered themselves into attacking us. But goddamn if we are going to let ourselves be extorted into rewarding them for it. Stated again. Everyone else can have their reps, on the terms they were assigned. good, so we have a starting point. lets take the next logical step then. why was the treaty worded in the way it was? The clause of the treaty suggests a spirit where it would have been cancelled not long after being signed as such the rest of your argument is worthless. Them keeping the treaty proves laziness to make a single post or a genuine interest for non agression. that was exactly my point. the wording indicates a spirit of 'we are going to violate this treaty and we have a legal means to do so' by both parties. you've agreed with me, but done so in a rather condescending manner. And what I'm saying is, boo hoo for you, suck it up, deal with it. Your intentions were very clear when that treaty was signed and written, they merely did what you were going to do all along, before you even had the chance.That's where your outrage is from. It's not "how dare they violate the terms of the treaty!" it's "how dare they violate the terms of the treay before us!" Very big difference. this is yet another way to rephrase my argument. thank you, my spacewalking friend. the treaty was set up with a clear goal in mind. PC seems to have beat TPF to the punch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Then I believe PC should add 120million in reps to the 20000 tech they should get, and another 80 million for an inappropriate use of their aid slots. Well, that's interesting. They owed the reps to California because they violated their own Tech Raiding Rules. The same rules that you wrote. And now you say don't pay the reps, like the rules say they should. So were the Tech Raiding Rules an actual guideline, or just a PR stunt to gain some good PR while tech raiding?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So TPF showed mercy to PC when they didn't roll them right? They only forced them to pay reps without a shot fired. Man, PC should really be grateful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty345 Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well, at least they're being honest about it. And I can get where they're coming from, so... Let the e-lawyer war continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 good, so we have a starting point. lets take the next logical step then.why was the treaty worded in the way it was? It was poorly worded by someone, not mhawk, who had never written a NAP before. That is all. No behind the scenes game or ulterior motive. Just a simple mistake. And it was written at a time we could have rolled PC, but didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 So TPF showed mercy to PC when they didn't roll them right? They only forced them to pay reps without a shot fired. Man, PC should really be grateful. What reps?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) If you hate TPF so much, why did you stay in the Continuum with them for so long? Here's the usual line of thought of you and serveral other people in your alliance (from what ive seen): Comment -> generalization -> drawing conclusions of your own -> accusing commenting party of said conclusions -> putting fingers in both ears and sing "LALALA" Edited July 25, 2009 by HellAngel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 What reps?? I recall having to pay reps during that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choader Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 What reps?? $84,000,000, 450 tech, and no building MPs and SDIs isn't reps? Don't play stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyria Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 It was poorly worded by someone, not mhawk, who had never written a NAP before. That is all. No behind the scenes game or ulterior motive. Just a simple mistake. And it was written at a time we could have rolled PC, but didn't. Then you have no one to blame but yourself. Your NAP fell victim to its own wording. It was an NAP until either party decided it wasn't an NAP, and then it simply ceased to exist. This also might be the most discussed NAP since NPO-GATO signed the Dove Doctrine or when GOONS canceled theirs with NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyyBerry Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Oh God, just pay the reps. Refusing to pay reps to PC is not harming them at all. You are the ones still at war and bill locked. In the end, it is a matter of whether you love your alliance and its community enough to deal with it, or if your pride has gotten the best of you. In the end, Poison Clan will be happy either way. Even if Poison Clan hurt some non-existent trust bond between both alliances, you are giving them exactly what they want, one way or the other. Everyone agrees TPF has fulfilled its role in this war. When it comes down to paying reparations to an enemy, other alliances have been forced to do much worse. It is really a choice in the end: save your alliance from further destruction or watch your ego bring your collective doom. TPF, you have lost this war. It's time to admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Well, that's interesting. They owed the reps to California because they violated their own Tech Raiding Rules. The same rules that you wrote. And now you say don't pay the reps, like the rules say they should. So were the Tech Raiding Rules an actual guideline, or just a PR stunt to gain some good PR while tech raiding?? I'm not even IN PC anymore, you make no sense, ever. And yes, I am saying they shouldn't pay those reps. They WON. They set the terms this time around, not you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm not even IN PC anymore, you make no sense, ever. And yes, I am saying they shouldn't pay those reps. They WON. They set the terms this time around, not you. But California wasn't in the war, it was a tech raid by PC that shouldn't have happened. PC stopped it, and agreed to pay reps for the mistake. The question is where are the reps, and why you don't want them to pay, when the Tech raid Rules you wrote ssay they should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted July 25, 2009 Report Share Posted July 25, 2009 Have fun in peace mode in TPF. 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.