lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 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 You didn't honestly think I meant fared well politically did you? Oh wow that's pretty hilarious. I'm fairly certain most people wouldn't be so hasty to make such an outlandish assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Reading this reminded me of one old saying: Like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. 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. I have never had any doubs of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Reading this reminded me of one old saying:Like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory. I have never had any doubs of that. I'm sure the former Hegemony alliances would have a thing or two to say about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm sure the former Hegemony alliances would have a thing or two to say about that. Your point is? Why would anyone have anything to say to the fact that i trust TOP, and know that they have been there for us in the past, and will be there in the future*. (*When they betray us jump side with bloc X when they come for the mighty FCC, pleeeeeeeeease dont bring this up:o) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 TOP has been lucky enough to have people in power (ironically at the times of important wars) that lobby against the general opinions of membership. Curiously, those people lobbied - or so I've been told - very hard for NPO in wars previous even against the sentiments of other leaders and membership thus complicating decisions. This time, even despite similar suspects, it appears it would have been more convenient to just be the wrench in the gears of Karma by lobbying for easy treatment of IRON and dragging their feet the whole way through. To those defending TOP: Cool. I personally think they've done what any alliance should do in their situation, ensure their own survival. Its rather trifling to tax them for that but at the same time not unwarranted. It shouldn't be surprising that those who have had to deal with their politik are frustrated. Lets face it, no experienced alliance is above criticism at this point. Let the pedants have their pitchforks and stop taking things so personally. Also lcdt94, shut up. Your horrible and blatant attempts at trolling are a disgrace to us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kencojenko Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm sure the former Hegemony alliances would have a thing or two to say about that. Would those hegemony alliances be those labelled as the "coward coalition" who did what you seem to think we did, or the NPO, who completely disregarded our attempts to mediate a peace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Would those hegemony alliances be those labelled as the "coward coalition" who did what you seem to think we did, or the NPO, who completely disregarded our attempts to mediate a peace? Two wrongs don't make a right. At least the Coward Coalition attempted to save face by going back to honor their treaties that they were obligated to. As far as I can tell the only treaties TOP needs to be signing are ODPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horatio Longworth Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 interesting... I knew TOP was an evil empire. I knew it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'll do a throwback to my latter days in Pacific. Ceterum censeo Paradoxia esse delendam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsticker Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 interesting... I knew TOP was an evil empire. I knew it! See, the top spot is a poisoned chalice. Ain't you glad TOP took it from you... I bet within weeks, TOP will be the next ebil alliance bent on world hegemony .... who cares about the truth... it's sensationalism that counts.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrim Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You can but try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Brilliant post, Jack. Would read again. Lol TOP and lol MHA. Especially shameful is how the latter managed to wiggle out of a treaty with a year long cancellation clause. It was miraculous how that treaty disappeared with NPO's surrender. I don't usually make or support charges of E lawyering, but those two did some amazing wiggling to be able to come out on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'll be blunt. I love the butthurt of some alliances here in their attempts to deny the pragmatic reality of the situations they've created for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You can but try. Now where have I heard that before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 See, the top spot is a poisoned chalice. Ain't you glad TOP took it from you...I bet within weeks, TOP will be the next ebil alliance bent on world hegemony .... who cares about the truth... it's sensationalism that counts.... Well they did have the audacity to demand lighter reparations for Hegemony alliances involved in wars that TOP was not a part of. This being back when TOP wasn't even at the top spot. I'd really hate to see what their next move is. Thanks to their blatant disregard for treaties and immeasurable value of infrastructure they have made it to #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Leaning on data to make the point you want it to make is very poor form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanus Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 All this hate for TOP, but if they and MHA had sided with the NPO, that war would have gone much differently. Although, I don't see too many people baawing about that... Also, I'm glad CSN finally has the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/ <insert alliance here> It's cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulgrim Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Now where have I heard that before? Its certainly not grandstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 See, the top spot is a poisoned chalice. Ain't you glad TOP took it from you...I bet within weeks, TOP will be the next ebil alliance bent on world hegemony .... who cares about the truth... it's sensationalism that counts.... Well, people do it because it works. People still buy the evil empire line. And the longer you're on top, the more out of context snippets of events and conversations they have to create a mosaic of evil and bastardry. It's just a sad thing when your friends and allies start believing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythicknight Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'll mirror Boris's post here This thread is rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Also, I'm glad CSN finally has the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/ <insert alliance here> It's cute. We tried to keep it to a minimum, but WickedJ had to go out and ruin everything. I like his style. And we are cute and adorable. It helps me sleep at night. This thread is kind of funny though, because it's nothing new: most treaties are text only and spineless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 All this hate for TOP, but if they and MHA had sided with the NPO, that war would have gone much differently. Although, I don't see too many people baawing about that...Also, I'm glad CSN finally has the cojones to post on the OWF with something other than o/ <insert alliance here> It's cute. I really doubt that. The war may have been a little closer, but it got pretty one sided shortly after the war broke out. This was due to several of the Hegemony alliances not taking the threat of war seriously and thus being ill equipped to fight it, like GGA. Two relatively large alliances certainly would not have changed the ultimate outcome of the war, but may have been able to make it a bit more interesting. I was really disappointed on how little resistance the other side put up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myzebedeeistaken Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'll do a throwback to my latter days in Pacific.Ceterum censeo Paradoxia esse delendam. Shouldn't there be an accusative declension in there? So... Ceterum censeo Paradoxiam esse delendam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRexx Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Ever since the end of the Third Great War when we lost the clear divide between the "north" web and "south" web and went to the "single massive MDoAP and MDAP mess that makes no sense" web its been impossible to act without breaking some kind of treaty, witht he UJW being the first example of this, but things going steadily downhill since then. In some cases treaty breaking has been organized, such as the faux outrage whipped up against the GPA and a series of ever so nicely timed DoN cancellings. The new CN standard practice is to watch some alliance bloc hit another alliance and bloc and then figure out which side looks like it will lose. If you have treaties with both parties you can claim conflicting treaties while figuring out which way the political winds are blowing. Then you announce the expected loser has violated Article IV, Section II, Subsection 7, Clause D of your poorly worded treaty with said loser and get in on the curbstomp and that sweet, sweet, tech. Overall in the Q/OV enviroment treaty expansion was encouraged since it kept a readymade bandwagon tied to the big boys. This lead to a lot of MDPs between alliances that really didn't like each other, but were encouraged to make nice by the power brokers because the NPO thought it could keep all its allies from squabbling despite fundamental differences in alliance character. This led to a lot of treaties getting signed that had no value and were pretty much treated as political liabilities and dropped the first moment possible. So discovering that people a half dozen treaties isn't news, its an expected structural result of the web that evolved during Q/OV era. If you want meaningful stats, look at the treaty drops as a function of percentage and long standing treaties that were dropped when they suddenly become political liabilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Shouldn't there be an accusative declension in there?So... Ceterum censeo Paradoxiam esse delendam? Yes, but I just pasted from an old IRC log where I'd also typed it incorrectly. Latin is confusing. NOW DIE 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.