Myzebedeeistaken Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) The simple answer would be 'common sense'. It's certainly a simple answer Not sure about the common sense though. So let's just clarify your methodology; you went through all the cancelled treaties within the number of days prior to Karma that you have digits on a hand, found them for the alliances listed, added them up (regardless of what the treaties said), and then called TOP, Polaris, MHA etc cowards on the basis of it? Interesting approach to stat collecting. Edited October 13, 2009 by Myzebedeeistaken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azrael Alexander Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Just proving that CN needs to band together and take out TOP/MHA instead of worrying about purplol or lolpink. I think us Grämlins might have a little problem with that plan Edited October 13, 2009 by Shamshir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 MHA and TOP clearly left Q due to the impending beatdown and therefore are cowardly alliances only interested in self-preservation, albeit cowardly alliances only interested in self-preservation who fought for Karma after alliances representing that group came begging on the doorstep. If TOP and MHA had decided to do the right thing by this thread and stayed in Q and fought alongside NPO there would have been another thread originating from somewhere in Karma crying about how TOP and MHA should have done the other right thing and dumped the treaties to fight for Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Man, so many people are flinging their poo at us. It's funny, because they wouldnt have acted any differently when put in the same situation. What easy choice was there? None. There were many of our allies on the Karma side and some on the Hegemony side. And NPO kicked us in the nuts just before the war. How would YOU have reacted? The only thing that can be held against us is not choosing a side earlier and sticking to it. TOP was oblivious to the problem from my perspective and thought they could prevent it by diplomatical intervention. Obviously, NPO didnt give jack !@#$ about TOP's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Man, so many people are flinging their poo at us. It's funny, because they wouldnt have acted any differently when put in the same situation. What easy choice was there? None. There were many of our allies on the Karma side and some on the Hegemony side. And NPO kicked us in the nuts just before the war. How would YOU have reacted?The only thing that can be held against us is not choosing a side earlier and sticking to it. TOP was oblivious to the problem from my perspective and thought they could prevent it by diplomatical intervention. Obviously, NPO didnt give jack !@#$ about TOP's opinion. Looks like you answered yourself there and added in something about TOP being oblivious which is another thing people arn't fans of I figure. It all comes down to jealousy in the end, it drives this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) What's particularly interesting to me is that Karma leadership always maintained that there were two sides in this war: Karma (which was allegedly defensive) and Hegemony (which was allegedly aggressive). The only allies that we retained treaties with that were on the offensive, and thus no assistance was mandated (above and beyond no-chaining clauses). But this only points to the fundamental contradiction identified by Crymson: Jack believes that the words contained within a treaty are meaningless. We do not. Remember folks, if you want to avoid getting slammed, you should ALWAYS support EVERY action that ANY person with whom you have a treaty decides to make. In a world where words, motives, and context don't matter it's the only way to gain honor. Of course, in that case 'honor' is simply another word, and is equally as meaningless as aggression, defense, non-chaining clauses, this thread, etc... Yep. Edited October 13, 2009 by WalkerNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyInc Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It looks as though taking a statistic from a single war and disregarding all contextual considerations to prove a point is a new trick for young Jack. Lets not rain on his parade by attempting to engage in any form of conversation that resembles an intelligent debate, comrades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This would be much more interesting if you tracked all these alliances back through time. As it is, it's basically just a list of "Alliances that made poor decisions about their FA in the leadup to the Karma War." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It looks as though taking a statistic from a single war and disregarding all contextual considerations to prove a point is a new trick for young Jack. Lets not rain on his parade by attempting to engage in any form of conversation that resembles an intelligent debate, comrades. You really think if he had managed to gather statistics from every war in history the current leaders of this thread would look any better? Stick to the 'disregarding all contextual considerations' argument, and even that's fairly weak when it's obvious this thread was a jibe anyway, a successful one at that thanks to most of the posts here. Leaving the thread is probably the best course of action for most of us Citadel posters here. There is no treasure at the end of this rainbow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 MHA and TOP clearly left Q due to the impending beatdown and therefore are cowardly alliances only interested in self-preservation, albeit cowardly alliances only interested in self-preservation who fought for Karma after alliances representing that group came begging on the doorstep. If TOP and MHA had decided to do the right thing by this thread and stayed in Q and fought alongside NPO there would have been another thread originating from somewhere in Karma crying about how TOP and MHA should have done the other right thing and dumped the treaties to fight for Karma. The problem here being that TOP has shown a consistent behavior of being allied to alliances that will predictably become enemies in the future. This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars. This isn't consistent with the death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of. For some reason TOP thinks they're fooling all of CN by doing this, but as this thread shows they're really not which has made them upset. TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies. There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The problem here being that TOP has shown a consistent behavior of being allied to alliances that will predictably become enemies in the future. This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars. This isn't consistent with the death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of. For some reason TOP thinks they're fooling all of CN by doing this, but as this thread shows they're really not which has made them upset. TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies. There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it. You know... if TOP was signing so many "conflicting treaties" as you put it, you would have made a point, but they dont (anymore). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 On a more on topic note from my previous posts, I don't really get the point of the thread. Is it for bragging that one alliance is better at following "friends > infra" than others, or just to call out alliances and trying to find some category by which you can do so? Just looking at the NpO citation in particular, you noted that Polar failed to defend Valhalla and NPO in the Karma War, despite the fact that there were explicit non-chaining clauses in those two treaties - we had no obligation to defend either. So unless not activating what was in that situation essentially an ODP counts as abandoning your friends, I would politely request that you refrain from dragging our name through the mud, even if it was not your intent.I suspect that the lack of research done in the OP skews more than just Polar's 'stats' as well; in the future I would suggest collecting each alliance's side of the story before making blanket statements about abandoning their friends. Just curious, is Polaris still allied with Valhalla? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The problem here being that TOP has shown a consistent behavior of being allied to alliances that will predictably become enemies in the future. This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars. This isn't consistent with the death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of. For some reason TOP thinks they're fooling all of CN by doing this, but as this thread shows they're really not which has made them upset. TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies. There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it. So why not just say this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Just curious, is Polaris still allied with Valhalla? No, check the post of D34th some pages ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Interesting that TOP wants all the treaties that were reduced to optional support thanks to the chaining clauses stricken from these records when it was an optional defense clause that they invoked to enter the war against UPN, Invicta and Echelon, and an optional aggression clause that they invoked to enter the war against BAPS. [Edit: Given your previous stance on chaining in the other treaties, I'd imagine the treaty with Umbrella contains the same clause, and so the war against OMFG would have been entered using an optional clause too. I could be wrong there though so someone correct me if I am.] If one side can expect your support thanks to optional clauses, I don't think it's unfair to point out the optional clauses you ignored on the other side. Edited October 13, 2009 by Poyplemonkeys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daboo Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 TOP, you're still awesome in my eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You know... if TOP was signing so many "conflicting treaties" as you put it, you would have made a point, but they dont (anymore). That remains to be seen. I seriously hope TOP has turned over a new leaf. Who knows maybe people will actually be able to count on TOP being there for them when they're needed the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) The problem here being that TOP has shown a consistent behavior of being allied to alliances that will predictably become enemies in the future. This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars. This isn't consistent with the death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of. For some reason TOP thinks they're fooling all of CN by doing this, but as this thread shows they're really not which has made them upset. TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies. There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it. The 2 bolded points contradict one another. Lets assume everything you have said is 100% accurate, the only thing at fault would be others perception of death before dishonor attitude that many people are fond of.. So technically they are at fault for not conducting themselves the way others think they should? Instead of contradictory logic why not just come out and say, "I dont like them, kill,kill,kill!!!! moar war!!!" Of course I enjoy the 15-25 pages of redundant tired logics, its entertaining but I also like the "hur durr" guys. Please? for the peanut gallery? Edited October 13, 2009 by Thorgrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) The 2 bolded points contradict one another. Lets assume everything you have said is 100% accurate, the only thing at fault would be others perception of . So technically they are at fault for not conducting themselves the way others think they should? Instead of contradictory logic why not just come out and say, "I dont like them, kill,kill,kill!!!! moar war!!!" Of course I enjoy the 15-25 pages of redundant tired logics, its entertaining but I also like the "hur durr" guys. Please? for the peanut gallery? How is it contradictory in the slightest? The basic concept is that TOP signs treaty A and treaty B. In the event of a war they're certain that it will be impossible to honor both of them during the conflict so they either choose to honor one or the other. If you're can't understand that you really don't need to be posting here. On another point you brought up. Treaties pretty much void any rights you have when it comes to deciding whether or not to involve yourself in a war. When you're signing a treaty you're saying "I trust you enough to support you no matter what". If TOP wants to decide how they should conduct themselves in a war they need to become an independent alliance. None of this selective treaty honoring cowardly nonsense. Edited October 13, 2009 by lcdt94 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I dont think you can conclude from one occasion to a general rule. Just admit that you dont like TOP and only want to spew your nonsense. I was in Gremlins leadership for a long time and TOP stood up for us on more than one occasion. I think a more valid statement would be that they stick up for their friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I dont think you can conclude from one occasion to a general rule. Just admit that you dont like TOP and only want to spew your nonsense. I was in Gremlins leadership for a long time and TOP stood up for us on more than one occasion. I think a more valid statement would be that they stick up for their friends. I really doubt that TOP would fight for anybody if put in a No CB War situation. TOP portrays themselves as being opportunists at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 How is it contradictory in the slightest? In the slightest? You say: This seems to allow TOP to choose which side of the war they want to fight for which is why they have managed to fare so well while "participating" in global wars. So they "fare so well" which literally would be a positive condition Then you say: TOP needs to stop signing so many conflicting treaties and stick with one set of allies. There really is no point in signing a treaty if you don't plan on honoring it. If the first bolded comment garnishes a positive condition, why would you then recommend they change a practice that garnishes it? If you dont see how that contradicts Im not sure I can be clearer, I will give you an out though. Did you not mean what you said ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nananana Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 so what do I win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) In the slightest? You say: So they "fare so well" which literally would be a positive condition Then you say: If the first bolded comment garnishes a positive condition, why would you then recommend they change a practice that garnishes it? If you dont see how that contradicts Im not sure I can be clearer, I will give you an out though. Did you not mean what you said ? They fare well in terms of minimal damage being done to them. They certainly haven't gotten to where they are today by honoring treaties. Edited October 13, 2009 by lcdt94 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgrum Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 They fare well in terms of minimal damage being done to them. It would have been much more refreshing if you had just said "okay dude I see what you mean, yeah its a little contradictory here is what I meant" but nice out anyway 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.