TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Fine, TOP is planning our Bad Boy point accumulation, at some point of our choosing, we will make you all so mad at us that all of you attack us (except our allies, allies stay allies and will not declare war on you), but you will realise that is in accordance with our World Conquest scheme, by that time though, there will be nothing stopping your annexation.Then we betray Grämlins. Down with the green menace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Down with the green menace! They haven't been green for a while Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 They haven't been green for a while You know what? I don't know these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Didn't Crymson say TOP would be leaving this topic 11 pages ago? And that would have been about 4 pages late. I can't believe all the serious outrage and replies trying to refute the original post. The stats themselves aren't incorrect, but the conclusions drawn are obviously overly simplified and stretched to make fun of the people on the list. I don't understand what made MHA and TOP get all defensive about this topic. !@#$, Optional Defense Network seemed to not get all riled up by it. Congrats TOP and MHA, many laughs were had at your expense, for just taking this topic seriously. Saying that, while I was skimming this topic, I felt like it was time to actually chime in, though not about the original post. You're quite welcome MHA, for we on the NPO front helped fix your dumbass decision to sign a treaty with a year long cancellation clause. I don't care what alliance you are, so this isn't some vendetta against you, because MHA hasn't really done much else anyways, but who the $%&@ signs a one year cancellation clause? So you can thank us on the NPO front who not only had to cancel the treaties that NPO had remaining, but had to adamantly maintain that all cancellation clauses were considered null and void as well. You're !@#$@#$ welcome. Also, most of us in Karma were preparing for war without TOP and MHA. And people in CnG can verify in the days prior to the war, I was hoping TOP did not get involved in Karma at all, not that I think TOP will have a hard time believing I felt that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Quite to the contrary, I addressed the only relevant point.It might be the pinnacle of irony that a key member of the coalition that fought to ensure that people wouldn't have to post I don't represent my alliance! is now clarifying that a member of the alliance that he leads does not speak for his alliance. Particularly when the member in question clearly represents the popular sentiment shared not only in his alliance but apparently within the bloc to which they belong. Who told you Athens fought in Karma for that? And who told you that Athens has a popular sentiment of antipathy towards TOP? I won't deny that some members do, just as some of TOP's members probably don't like Athens that much. But that does not constitute a foreign policy decision for us, and I hope not for TOP either. Thus, a few members do not speak for the alliance, nor is Athens a democracy. I speak for the alliance. That is my role. The problem is assuming that those who sign treaties spread out far and wide do so intending to ever have to cancel any of them because they conflict. At the time TOP signed the treaties that ended up conflicting, they didn't conflict. At one point FoK and Gremlins, which would be two of TOP's main allies that were on the opposite side of it's other allies (IRON and NPO), were in Q with TOP. Over time TOP's allies drifted apart from each other, placing TOP in a lose/lose situation. Labeling that as "survivalism" is very unfair. You could accuse NPO of it, as they signed many treaties that obviously were strategic and didn't have any friendship behind them. TOP, not so much.The problem with this thread is that it is in many ways a joke, but it is rapped around potentially serious ideas that people hold, and it's not unreasonable to see it as trying to propagate those ideas by disguising it as humor. Nor did I blame TOP for that, if you go back and read my posts. In fact, I said it was understandable. It can happen to anyone. And thus it is an artifact in the data collection and analysis process. Others may have chosen to use this thread as a platform to vilify TOP, but I have not nor would I. I am too appreciative of the support that TOP extended to the Karma Coalition during the Karma war for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I do not believe any strings have come attached with TOP's involvement in Karma. I think we both know that's a lie Liquid. Edited October 13, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scutterbug Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Didn't Crymson say TOP would be leaving this topic 11 pages ago? And that would have been about 4 pages late. I can't believe all the serious outrage and replies trying to refute the original post. The stats themselves aren't incorrect, but the conclusions drawn are obviously overly simplified and stretched to make fun of the people on the list. I don't understand what made MHA and TOP get all defensive about this topic. !@#$, Optional Defense Network seemed to not get all riled up by it. Congrats TOP and MHA, many laughs were had at your expense, for just taking this topic seriously.Saying that, while I was skimming this topic, I felt like it was time to actually chime in, though not about the original post. You're quite welcome MHA, for we on the NPO front helped fix your dumbass decision to sign a treaty with a year long cancellation clause. I don't care what alliance you are, so this isn't some vendetta against you, because MHA hasn't really done much else anyways, but who the $%&@ signs a one year cancellation clause? So you can thank us on the NPO front who not only had to cancel the treaties that NPO had remaining, but had to adamantly maintain that all cancellation clauses were considered null and void as well. You're !@#$@#$ welcome. Also, most of us in Karma were preparing for war without TOP and MHA. And people in CnG can verify in the days prior to the war, I was hoping TOP did not get involved in Karma at all, not that I think TOP will have a hard time believing I felt that way. I think it was pretty clear with our stance what would of happened to that treaty after the war regardless. You just sped up the process and did it for us. As to us having to thank you for it. LOL is all i can respectfully say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I think it was pretty clear with our stance what would of happened to that treaty after the war regardless. You just sped up the process and did it for us. As to us having to thank you for it. LOL is all i can respectfully say. It's still a pretty damn ridiculous clause to have to begin with. What were you thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I think it was pretty clear with our stance what would of happened to that treaty after the war regardless. You just sped up the process and did it for us. As to us having to thank you for it. LOL is all i can respectfully say. Are you saying you would have canceled it? And then abide by the one year cancellation clause? Edit: Maybe you thought I meant thank me personally? There are plenty others from the NPO front who, if they wanted, could have opposed nullifying the cancellation clauses. Edited October 13, 2009 by Rafael Nadal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I think it was pretty clear with our stance what would of happened to that treaty after the war regardless. You just sped up the process and did it for us. As to us having to thank you for it. LOL is all i can respectfully say. 'LOL' for signing treaties with 1 year cancellation clauses that you have no intention of keeping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I think it was pretty clear with our stance what would of happened to that treaty after the war regardless. You just sped up the process and did it for us. As to us having to thank you for it. LOL is all i can respectfully say. What would it have been? To continue to ignore it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Nor did I blame TOP for that, if you go back and read my posts. In fact, I said it was understandable. It can happen to anyone. And thus it is an artifact in the data collection and analysis process. Others may have chosen to use this thread as a platform to vilify TOP, but I have not nor would I. I am too appreciative of the support that TOP extended to the Karma Coalition during the Karma war for that. I'm more talking about the OP, ant not your particular position. I can't blame TOP and MHA for taking it as an attack when it uses a provocative terms with very negative connotations like "survivalist". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm more talking about the OP, ant not your particular position. I can't blame TOP and MHA for taking it as an attack when it uses a provocative terms with very negative connotations like "survivalist". Or such incendiary language as "Everyone else was doing some kind of a stat race, so I decided to make one too!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 What would it have been?To continue to ignore it? When did they ignore it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I'm more talking about the OP, ant not your particular position. I can't blame TOP and MHA for taking it as an attack when it uses a provocative terms with very negative connotations like "survivalist". As the saying goes, a spade's a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I'm more talking about the OP, ant not your particular position. I can't blame TOP and MHA for taking it as an attack when it uses a provocative terms with very negative connotations like "survivalist". By taking this topic seriously and getting defensive about it, all they've done is somewhat validate the notion of the original post. The original post was not deserving of serious replies. Edited October 13, 2009 by Rafael Nadal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scutterbug Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It's still a pretty damn ridiculous clause to have to begin with. What were you thinking? Im sure we have all done things we later regret on planet Bob, this is one of those. It was a good idea at the time but back then we didnt know Pacificas true colours. If i could go back to the day it got signed i for one would change it as would others. But alas we cannot, and i guess it makes all you guys happy to just go LOL 1 year clause that was stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 When did they ignore it? See the OP. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You could accuse NPO of it, as they signed many treaties that obviously were strategic and didn't have any friendship behind them. TOP, not so much. But of course, I didnt doubt it. Although is the same thing in both cases, treaties signed with many alliances said out of friendship, when TOP is concerned its ok, when NPO is concerned then its "obvious" strategic and et all, bad. The same judgment cant be made about a same thing,... Cant expect any different from a mind of a MKer. I am sure that it sounds quite real to you. Bias, we cant help ourselves I guess. I hold it too, though, still can call things the same if they are by all factual accounts. Anyway, regarding the thread. I have a certain problem with terminology which is now setting in. "The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race",....survivalist used in a bad tone. All alliances are survivalist, all self aware creations are, are they not? It should be in their nature, basic foundation of them or they are defunct, dysfunctional. I understand what is tried to be implied here, but feel that certain other mark should be used to describe it. Calling somebody survivalist as meant as an insult, is really something that only CN can come up with Anyway, wanted to share that, you can go back to your squabbling, its good and I like it. Great thread by Diorno Edited October 13, 2009 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 By taking this topic seriously, all they've done is somewhat validate the original post. The original post was not deserving of serious replies. Nor, by most accounts, was it asking for any. Seriously...This entire nearly 20 pages was caused by overreactions. I would ask if folks had anything better to do, but I already know that answer to that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Im sure we have all done things we later regret on planet Bob, this is one of those. It was a good idea at the time but back then we didnt know Pacificas true colours. If i could go back to the day it got signed i for one would change it as would others. But alas we cannot, and i guess it makes all you guys happy to just go LOL 1 year clause that was stupid. How on earth is it that you are a triumvir of a sanctioned alliance? It truly baffles me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Im sure we have all done things we later regret on planet Bob, this is one of those. It was a good idea at the time but back then we didnt know Pacificas true colours. If i could go back to the day it got signed i for one would change it as would others. But alas we cannot, and i guess it makes all you guys happy to just go LOL 1 year clause that was stupid. No, it was never a good clause. It was laughed at when it was announced as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Im sure we have all done things we later regret on planet Bob, this is one of those. It was a good idea at the time but back then we didnt know Pacificas true colours. If i could go back to the day it got signed i for one would change it as would others. But alas we cannot, and i guess it makes all you guys happy to just go LOL 1 year clause that was stupid. "It's still a pretty damn ridiculous clause to begin with. What were you thinking?" How does that post answer that question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 See the OP.Thanks. They followed their treaty to the letter, did they not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Im sure we have all done things we later regret on planet Bob, this is one of those. It was a good idea at the time but back then we didnt know Pacificas true colours. If i could go back to the day it got signed i for one would change it as would others. But alas we cannot, and i guess it makes all you guys happy to just go LOL 1 year clause that was stupid. Been trying to stay out of this thread, but come on Scutter. NPO and MHA were allied since MHA was created, and some of you jokingly called MHA an NPO splinter alliance due to 2 of 3 in your first gov being ex-NPO. We were close, and that treaty and that cancellation clause didn't come out of nowhere. I know you guys are annoyed at us for the stuff in the leadup to the war, and you have every right to be. We screwed up. But don't try and say that you held this treaty for so long and then suddenly realised we were monsters. 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.