The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[Chalaskan]

You know what, i wouldnt mind getting a beatdown. Peace is boring anyway. Plus the annoying stats huggers talk would finally go away.

That song by Michael Jackson...You are not alone...it comes to mind.

[Ellis]

For almost every treaty you held, there was a clause that mandated the sharing of information relating to aggressive war, a non chaining clause and/or an optional aggression clause. Since you started the war, MDPs were not immediately activated, and non-chaining MDPs (or those with no chaining clause interpreted in that way) not at all, and since you didn't inform your allies of your planned suicide, any treaty with an information clause you broke and therefore the other side was not obliged to bail you out.

A combination of those things is why MHA, TOP, Sparta, NpO, RIA, Fark and possibly others didn't fight on your side despite one or more MDP treaties.

The fact that so many Continuum alliances did fight with you is testament to their loyalty to the old system – I know that if I'd still been in Continuum, I'd have told you to get lost if you asked for support after breaking the 72h notice clause for at least the third time.

I agree on MHA, TOP and NpO, but I'm pretty sure Fark, Sparta and RIA weren't going to fight with us anyway, although RIA did follow their treaty, as I think it reverted to a NAP if we were on opposite sides of the war.

[Chalaskan]

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.

Let me answer the bolded question...Their MOFA and Leader did!

Many of their allies government officials backed them.

EDIT:

You missed it. I was saying that if they were your enemies, you'd switch sides and become their friends.

I only hope you are on the opposite side when your alliance grabs it's balls.

It is unfortunate I cannot fight you specifically as you are out of my range.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Chalaskan

[Cataduanes]

Then you'd better leave IAA, because their past shows they've conveniently looked the other way.

While i am not overly fond of IAA at present (given their penchant to slam ODN) i find this comment confusing...are you criticizing IAA for its actions in the GATO-1V war? if so i must disagree....IAA stood by GATO and while the alliance as a whole may have disbanded half way through the conflict many of its members continued to fight (some went over to GATO for the remainder of the war), the fact IAA together with UPN and CSN stood its ground and fought surely counts for something. Or are you referring to another episode in IAA's history??

[Branimir]

Or perhaps he's talking about the openness, the lack of fear and intimidation, the kind that was rampant between those times that made people and entire alliances disappear merely for voicing their displeasure at certain alliances and certain blocs.

It's refreshing to be able to speak ones mind as openly and freely as one chooses, and not have to worry that their opinions will lead to the downfall of their friends and treaty partners.

Auto censorship is always present and that really isn't important in regards to my argument, and I will expand.

I obviously went to the core of the deal not bothering with the rest of the package. How you perceive things is always fundamentally colored by how good is your own primary position and how content you are with it. If it is positive, everything just somehow,...seems better. If it is not, then everything just somehow,..seems that more worse. Basic human psychology one-on-one. From FF position, previous political world had no chance of being good due to his own position.

Anyway, doesn't matter really.

[Penkala]

While i am not overly fond of IAA at present (given their penchant to slam ODN) i find this comment confusing...are you criticizing IAA for its actions in the GATO-1V war? if so i must disagree....IAA stood by GATO and while the alliance as a whole may have disbanded half way through the conflict many of its members continued to fight (some went over to GATO for the remainder of the war), the fact IAA together with UPN and CSN stood its ground and fought surely counts for something. Or are you referring to another episode in IAA's history??

Unfortunately for IAA some remember far more than just the Gato-1V war, in which they acted honorably. This is indeed referring to another episode in IAA's history, when they managed to wiggle out of a commitment.

[D34th]

Let me answer the bolded question...Their MOFA and Leader did!

Londo already said that Jack Diorno ins't Athens MOFA.

[kevin32891]

Unfortunately for IAA some remember far more than just the Gato-1V war, in which they acted honorably. This is indeed referring to another episode in IAA's history, when they managed to wiggle out of a commitment.

That was more than a year ago. Not to mention it was the first IAA alliance not the one present today.

IAA is a great alliance.

[Richard Rahl]

That was more than a year ago. Not to mention it was the first IAA alliance not the one present today.

IAA is a great alliance.

It happened over a year ago so it doesn't count? Interesting.

[Locke]

It happened over a year ago so it doesn't count? Interesting.

I believe the second part of his statement was more pertinent to the matter at hand. Chim knows that the first IAA had issues and has done his very best to ensure that the second IAA does not repeat the same mistakes, and is doing it quite well, if you ask me. :>

[kevin32891]

It happened over a year ago so it doesn't count? Interesting.

It happened in the FIRST IAA alliance not the current one.

[Cataduanes]

Unfortunately for IAA some remember far more than just the Gato-1V war, in which they acted honorably. This is indeed referring to another episode in IAA's history, when they managed to wiggle out of a commitment.

Ahhh i see, so no amount of improvement on the part of IAA since then counts for you...thats a shame

[kevin32891]

Ahhh i see, so no amount of improvement on the part of IAA since then counts for you...thats a shame

According to Penkala its enough to condemn them.

[Shardoon]

Meh, I know it was hot topic 10 pages back but just wanted to mention that there was no way in hell that TOP could have come out looking decent in the eyes of most of the pinheads here during the karma war.

TOP comes in on the side of Karma at the start: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies and chose to jump in with the stronger side and are a bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

TOP goes in for the hegemony side: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies and chose the evil side (and possibly jeopardized a karma victory).

TOP stays out: Arguments range from TOP bailed on all its allies and cuddled their infra and are bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

TOP comes in late: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies, chose easy targets and came in when it was going to get less damage and thus are a bunch of infra cuddling cowards escaping due punishment.

(i must admit that given the timing that was probably the second worst decision)

All this with the footnote of Crymson's generally ignored legalistic point that treaties are non-chaining for a reason.

. . . .

EDIT: I guess my point was that you can !@#$%* and whine as much as you want about it but there is never going to be any winner to this argument since no matter what TOP had done they would have still been crucified for a sin. But hey thats the nature of this world of ours.

Second best post on this thread is also being ignored. I quoted it above.

[Feanor Noldorin]

EDIT: I guess my point was that you can !@#$%* and whine as much as you want about it but there is never going to be any winner to this argument since no matter what TOP had done they would have still been crucified for a sin. But hey thats the nature of this world of ours.

I am ready to be punished for our perceived sins against the cyberverse.

I hope I don't have to wait to much longer.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Second best post on this thread is also being ignored. I quoted it above.

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think some of the anger towards TOP as presented in this thread is more about how the war played out after TOP had entered and not before.

[Penkala]

That was more than a year ago. Not to mention it was the first IAA alliance not the one present today.

IAA is a great alliance.

So was their defense of GATO. So they've done nothing good and nothing bad in the last year so they've essentially done.... nothing? Well now I see why NSO's so fond of them. You're like two peas in a pod! You both talk a lot but when it really comes down to it you don't do anything!

According to Penkala its enough to condemn them.

I didn't condemn them, I just find it extremely arrogant of them to criticize someone for leaving allies to die when they have done it in the past. Actually, anyone TOP has 'left to die' (I mean although they didn't. They were naive and held onto ties for too long but they went with their friends in the end and, well, read this) didn't die (disband). When IAA sat on the side they did die (disband), alone. So yeah, IAA can get out of this discussion because they have no place telling others how to behave in regards to following treaties.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Penkala

[Titus Pullo]

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think some of the anger towards TOP as presented in this thread is more about how the war played out after TOP had entered and not before.

I'm listening and would be interested to hear more. How did the war "play out" after TOP entered? How did TOP's entrance change the war? (I hear a lot of comments suggesting that TOP's participation did nothing due to the targets chosen, the length of involvement, etc.) Why are people upset/angry over how the war changed once TOP entered?

[mattski133]

Green, you of all people should know what I mean, having aided in the subjugation and tyranny of Pacifica yourself. Allow me to explain.

What does 2+2= ?

This is the foundation of my displeasure. You see, 2+2=4, always, regardless.

But, imagine if you will, 20,000 people claiming that 2+2=5. All of these people clamor together, talking the loudest and the most forcefully, and soon they convince 99% of people that, indeed, 2+2=5.

Does that mean that 2+2=5?

No: It just means that 99% of people are !@#$@#$ idiots.

At the top of our world now are those who believe that 2+2=5.

As I said earlier, enjoy it, Planet Bob: You've earned this.

If this is popular opinion over there, I'd do it again gladly to continue my current level of enjoyment.

Also: Imagine if we did this for all the alliances...instead of just sanctioned ones. The horror...

TOP stays out: Arguments range from TOP bailed on all its allies and cuddled their infra and are bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

I don't think you'd have taken much flak for staying out entirely. That is one of the consequences of having military treaties all over the place though, so it is what it is. Karma was happy you entered on the level you did and the Hegemony was too busy cancelling on each other to be able to whine about you not joining either.

AND you're #1 now. Win/win.

Edited October 14, 2009 by mattski133

[Arcturus Jefferson]

@Titus Pullo - All I'm really angry about is how the IRON peace negotiations went down. While there are plenty of people to spread the blame around, TOP was the principle advocate for IRON getting off scot free (Scott free?) which was absolutely ridiculous given how the war had unfolded.

[Some-Guy]

@Titus Pullo - All I'm really angry about is how the IRON peace negotiations went down. While there are plenty of people to spread the blame around, TOP was the principle advocate for IRON getting off scot free (Scott free?) which was absolutely ridiculous given how the war had unfolded.

Of course we were for IRON getting lighter terms from our "friends" who chose to attack them.

What other expectation could you have possibly expected from us?

[Bodvar Jarl]

@Titus Pullo - All I'm really angry about is how the IRON peace negotiations went down. While there are plenty of people to spread the blame around, TOP was the principle advocate for IRON getting off scot free (Scott free?) which was absolutely ridiculous given how the war had unfolded.

Indirectly, maybe, though the principle advocate(s) for IRON getting light(er) terms can be found among those actually fighting IRON.

[Titus Pullo]

I certainly can't absolutely know to what extent TOP was involved in those negotiations, but I thought we only talked to Gre about it and that they agreed with us that IRON should have lighter reparations. Again, I may be wrong, but this is how it was portrayed to me. Perhaps someone more familiar (particularly someone in Gre) with how things happened could enlighten me.

[Drai]

Second best post on this thread is also being ignored. I quoted it above.

In response to the post you quoted (see below), there was an option left out.

Defend all your treaty partners. If you're willing to sign with them in the first place, and not cancel before the war (say early April), then defend them during the war regardless of sides. If there were too many conflicts you should have thought about it before scattering yourselves politically, which does in fact lay the blame with your alliance.

Edit: the quote

Meh, I know it was hot topic 10 pages back but just wanted to mention that there was no way in hell that TOP could have come out looking decent in the eyes of most of the pinheads here during the karma war.

TOP comes in on the side of Karma at the start: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies and chose to jump in with the stronger side and are a bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

TOP goes in for the hegemony side: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies and chose the evil side (and possibly jeopardized a karma victory).

TOP stays out: Arguments range from TOP bailed on all its allies and cuddled their infra and are bunch of cowards escaping due punishment.

TOP comes in late: Arguments range from TOP backstabbed half its allies, chose easy targets and came in when it was going to get less damage and thus are a bunch of infra cuddling cowards escaping due punishment.

(i must admit that given the timing that was probably the second worst decision)

All this with the footnote of Crymson's generally ignored legalistic point that treaties are non-chaining for a reason.

The above formula also applies to any of the so called coalition of cowards. Had any of those alliances chosen to conscientiously not fight because it was simply wrong given that the NPO had started an stupid aggressive war, they would have been called....well cowards...rather than critical thinkers and stand up guys.

In fact, while talking to IRON and MCXA i could hardly blame them for deciding to go in because if they hadnt (and they had every moral and legal reason not to) they would have been branded for ever.

Then the question becomes well should they have been allied to the NPO in the first place in which case the answer is maybe, maybe not but given that even alliances like RIA had an MDP with NPO throughout the war the point becomes moot since we all at one point or another had our hand in the dirty NPO cookie jar (except for MK and C&G but thats moot since they were pretty much automatically excluded).

EDIT: I guess my point was that you can !@#$%* and whine as much as you want about it but there is never going to be any winner to this argument since no matter what TOP had done they would have still been crucified for a sin. But hey thats the nature of this world of ours.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Drai

[Sylar]

In response to the post you quoted (see below), there was an option left out.

Defend all your treaty partners. If you're willing to sign with them in the first place, and not cancel before the war (say early April), then defend them during the war regardless of sides. If there were too many conflicts you should have thought about it before scattering yourselves politically, which does in fact lay the blame with your alliance.

i think you won the thread

but really you guys should have seen this coming and canceled your treaties if you were not gonna honor them.