Francesca Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Fran, I know, I was in TPF for most of the war. My comment was jokingly sarcastic, as in: Oh, I know you were in TPF. I wasn't quite sure why you'd asked, but I decided to reply anyway. PC: "We never break treaties"Fran: "Uhhh... You broke one 4 months ago" Me: "Pfft, those pesky details" -Bama also lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Cantona Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 This isn't about the TPF-PC treaty. We already had numerous threads about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) So lets say one of your allies screws up, you going to cancel on them? i though the gremlins were better than that. We will honour treaties no matter what size alliance, also people inform me where PC hasnt honoured a treaty? Because there allied to us. No matter how bad they screw up allies are allies Whilst I don't approve of IS' actions at all I can respect this attitude. Dumping on an ally when tensions are high because of one wrong move would be nothing more than a cop-out (disguised as honour, the right thing to do, or whatever) to protect your infra. Edited August 21, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorponok Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I guess this wasn't avoidable... Enjoy being honourable and paying for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I guess this wasn't avoidable...Enjoy being honourable and paying for it... We aren't criticising their decision to defend their ally. We're criticising their double standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Alright, details. DT issued a DoW on TPF because of GR's DoW on TPF because TPF attacked Avalanche. DT launched one offensive war. PC activated a oA in a treaty with DT. So essentially, they attacked TPF while they had an NAP through treaty chaining and a optional pact... we actually have MDAP with DT. I guess this wasn't avoidable...Enjoy being honourable and paying for it... It was avoidable, we could have canceled and moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 If one of my allies declared war for no reason, without consulting me about it, and then expected me to bail them out when they got counter-attacked, yes I would want to cancel an MDP that would oblige me to do so. Defence treaties are not supposed to make alliances think that they can be aggressive and use my weight to back up their bullying and I wouldn't want a treaty with an alliance like that anyway. I would attempt to broker a diplomatic resolution to the issue instead of letting the friend simply get themselves killed – in this case, get IS to pay the reps for their unprovoked attack. Of course none of my allies would do such a thing in the first place, so the point is rather moot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 While I respect PC honouring their treaties like most alliances should do, what actually concerns me is that PC may not be honouring their treaty simply out of obligation. Poison Clan, do you condone the actions of the Internet Superheroes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 You really should let IS burn, at one point you would have, because at one point you were better than this. Then again, at one point you actually stood for something, but that was a long time ago apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 IS has the sovereign right to declare wars for whatever reason they see fit. PC has the sovereign right to support whatever wars they'd like to. The rest of the world has the sovereign right to get involved as they do or do not see fit. That said, PC, you have very, very short memories. You clearly don't remember what's happened to every other alliance who ran around declaring and supporting aggressive wars without any actual reason. Do you think that, for some reason, you're exempt from the same fate that has been met by nearly everyone else who has pushed the aggressive button once too many times? You're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Brutus Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 If one of my allies declared war for no reason, without consulting me about it, and then expected me to bail them out when they got counter-attacked, yes I would want to cancel an MDP that would oblige me to do so. Defence treaties are not supposed to make alliances think that they can be aggressive and use my weight to back up their bullying and I wouldn't want a treaty with an alliance like that anyway. I would attempt to broker a diplomatic resolution to the issue instead of letting the friend simply get themselves killed – in this case, get IS to pay the reps for their unprovoked attack.Of course none of my allies would do such a thing in the first place, so the point is rather moot. The value of our friends is higher than that of our pixels. I understand what you are saying and somewhat agree with it, but PC would not back down from their friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Wow. I see people honoring their promises rather than rushing to bandwagon a psuedo-moralistic crusade. I don't know what to say. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The value of our friends is higher than that of our pixels. That's not what my argument is against. If IS were blitzed by the combined forces of the world for no reason, and you supported them, that would be a good thing, and one which I would expect PC to do (you've never been afraid of fighting through a loss). This is not about telling you to save your pixels, it's about not supporting bullying and needless aggression – something which can be better addressed by leaving IS without military support and encouraging them to pay reps, while protecting them from attack while they make things right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scythegfx Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I said nothing about not honoring a treaty to defend there allies I just said they failed at it that's all, a least they did stand by there treaty. Yeah, so what? We lost the last war. Big deal. If this escalates though, I'm sure you'll know how it feels to fail at a war in addition to failing at being a respectable alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Cancelling a treaty is never the correct answer. A good friend bails you out of jail, A great friend is the one sitting next to you saying "That was fun!" IS are some funny guys/gals and they messed up, does that mean because of this mishap they should go down alone? Heck no. If your friends $%&@ and demolish and you dont agree with that you come along anyway because they are your friends? Alright. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The value of our friends is higher than that of our pixels. I understand what you are saying and somewhat agree with it, but PC would not back down from their friends. You know, you may be onto something... I bet $10 you bail on PC before PC bails on IS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Brutus Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 (edited) You know, you may be onto something...I bet $10 you bail on PC before PC bails on IS. Says You? And I am unto something as I have friends in PC, and I wouldn't back down for a few pixels I use a different terminology than you. Edited August 21, 2009 by Emperor Brutus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suryanto tan Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 That's not what my argument is against. If IS were blitzed by the combined forces of the world for no reason, and you supported them, that would be a good thing, and one which I would expect PC to do (you've never been afraid of fighting through a loss). This is not about telling you to save your pixels, it's about not supporting bullying and needless aggression – something which can be better addressed by leaving IS without military support and encouraging them to pay reps, while protecting them from attack while they make things right. This is a wise advice and I strongly suggest Poison Clan reconsider their action. There is nothing wrong with trying to make things right. People won't think less of you. But if you find your joy through this, enjoy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gn0xious Jr Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 i can't see how the argument of "friends before pixels" applies here. no one in their right mind is questioning a fear of losing pixels. all i DO see, is requests that PC help IS resolve this diplomatically. IS is the aggressor in this situation. If IS were my friends, I'd be asking them why? and see if they could right their wrong. I would not blindly follow their lead simplly because they were my friend. It's not about pixels, it's about not aiding a bully. However, if PC enjoys aiding a bully, who wars for no reason, then that is their sovereign right. I may not agree with it, but if it's how they wish to conduct business, i'll remember that for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgator Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yeah, so what? We lost the last war. Big deal. If this escalates though, I'm sure you'll know how it feels to fail at a war in addition to failing at being a respectable alliance. I'm not say there is a big deal, except the fact that an Invicta member was so quick to send us a fail boat, when in fact they just got off one themselves. I already know what it's like to fail at war, I was in the NoV war. As for the situation do I think IS pulled a dumb stunt? Of course I do, but will we hang them out to dry? I don't see us doing that... Will we try and work for peace? I do believe that is the plan, while making sure our allies don't get bum rushed in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankdolf Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 How unjust Do your thing, PC. The morally outraged peanut gallery's bark is worse than their bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 OH NOOOO!! THE UJP HAS ARRIVED! HIDE THE CHILDREN!!! The outrage!! The terror! Give me a break.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 How unjustDo your thing, PC. The morally outraged peanut gallery's bark is worse than their bite. yeah, just ask NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 The responsible thing to do here would be to use your treaty with IS as a way to leverage a peace agreement. Of course, it's much easier to sit back and allow your friends to senselessly destroy another alliance than stop the bloodshed. Good work here Poison Clan, really top notch. I hold the tiniest shreds of hope that you are trying to work this out in back channels, and that your sense of decency will prevail. I'll see what I can do here as soon as I get back from (OOC: vacation), but honestly, this never should have gotten to this point in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I hold the tiniest shreds of hope that you are trying to work this out in back channels, and that your sense of decency will prevail. I may have dogged on pink all day yesterday, but they're not stupid. I'm reasonably sure talking in back channels about this is going on. 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.