The Amazing Survivalist Alliance Race

[Delta1212]

Sorry Delta, but you may have missed it. Jones in his original comments said that TOP threw their allies under hte bus. When asked which allies he was referring to, he said RoK and GOD and cited the Echelon peace terms thread that TOP and TSO made seperate from the rest of the forces fighting against Echelon.

That's pretty clear

And for the last time, no, he didn't.

you, sir, are a smart one. And 99% of the anger towards TOP that stems from the karma war, is due to their abhorent behaviour to their supposed "allies" during the conflict, towards the end of the conflict, and their subsequent throwing of alliances under the bus (atleast attempting to, since it failed and it just made TOP look even worse in the eyes of many.)

[Bob Janova]

Hm, guess I misread that :oops:

[Titus Pullo]

And for the last time, no, he didn't.

Read this real quick.

Note that, when asked what allies TOP acted abhorrently to and which "allies" (Yes, the term "allies" was used in the question) TOP threw under the bus, the only alliances mentioned are RoK and GOD. He then goes on to say that TOP "also" acted abhorrently towards many other alliances.

While the meaning of this post may be clear to some, it could certainly use some improvement.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Titus Pullo

[wickedj]

What actions?  There were only words.  I find your reaction to be completely unreasonable.

Words carry alot of weight. Words have caused wars.

[Penkala]

Read this real quick.

Note that, when asked what allies TOP acted abhorrently to and which "allies" (Yes, the term "allies" was used in the question) TOP threw under the bus, the only alliances mentioned are RoK and GOD. He then goes on to say that TOP "also" acted abhorrently towards many other alliances.

While the meaning of this post may be clear to some, it could certainly use some improvement.

It must just be that you can't understand whatever language cupcakes use. He did not bring up 'allies', it was someone else. So yes, TOP threw alliances under the bus, just. as. he. stated.

[Joe Kremlin]

It must just be that you can't understand whatever language cupcakes use. He did not bring up 'allies', it was someone else. So yes, TOP threw alliances under the bus, just. as. he. stated.

Except we didn't do that either. And he never said which allies we acted abhorrently towards.

[Kowalski]

Logical explanation

Too sensible jerdge. This isn't a case of looking at facts and making an informed decision, it's having an opinion, drumming up some facts to support said opinion and then taking an "I decided not to use this information at the start so if you make a valid counter-argument using information that I decided to dismiss or ignore then it isn't relevant, even if if it actually is" attitude.

[Azaghul]

'Allies in the war sense'? You mean, not allies at all? Yeah, I knew what you meant, but that's not 'allies'. Were we allies of GGA in the Hyperion/BLEU war? No. We weren't even allies of R&R who were on our front. We weren't allies of RoK in the Karma war despite being on the same front. Being on the same side of a war definitely does not make one allies, and it's natural to put the interests of your MDP partners (even those on the 'wrong side') above those of non-allies who you happen to be working with for a temporary, short term mutual interest.

Claiming TOP threw those alliances under the bus is a huge overstatement of what actually happened. They disagreed with operating procedure and, once the operation was complete, made their own peace – which I personally disagree with (we could have done that with Polar and with IRON but instead worked out a compromise with co-belligerents), but it is nowhere near throwing under a bus.

Co-belligerents should have a certain amount of respect to work together and not leave their co-belligerents on the field alone. When the moderate party leaves the field it usually makes the situation worse as their moderating influence no longer exists. We (MK) were kinda tempted to do this over some disagreements with PC over TPF's terms, but quickly decided we wouldn't leave them hanging out to dry and our staying involved worked out better for everyone as we could reason with and work to bring two mortal enemies to an acceptable compromise. If TOP had stayed in they could have better used their influence to get better terms for Echelon.

[Drai]

So what you're saying is that if you have friends who don't like each other, then you have to pick one and can't try and resolve their differences and bring them back together?

Actually I said pretty much the opposite. Should the war break out and nothing could have been done beforehand (in the few days before the war) then you should defend all your allies regardless of "sides" in the war.

NpO declared that would be their path (though they didn't get caught in a situation anywhere near as big as TOP's).

Edited October 15, 2009 by Drai

[Heracles the Great]

It would be different if they were merely on the same side, but on different fronts. I fought on the same side as you, and I outright hate you and I hate your alliance, but we weren't fighting on the same front, if we were you would have been my ally, because how you did, how you were being treated, and how you were handling the war would directly affect my alliance. We would be allies out of necessity.

It is quite unfortunate that everything needs to be spelled out, or there are people like you who would seek to twist the words of others, while completely disregarding the original point, that being it is alright for TOP to act the way they do, if only they would own up to their past behaviour. I've stuck by this point since I originally voiced my displeasure at TOP, they merely need to be honest about their behaviour and their intentions.

edit: And, whatever you say, bobby j.

Since you hate me and my alliance, do you konw what alliance I'm in? Assuming you're not mistaken like an earlier commentator, I'd love to know what we have done to wrong you that has brought about this hate.

As for the rest of your comments, us being on the same front doesn't make us anything more than coordinating alliances - and sometimes not even that. Just because you are the enemy of my enemy does not make you my ally - it makes you a friend for the time being, and sometimes not even that. As for me twisting your words, I did no such thing - I called you out when you made an ignorant statement and did so on several parts of your statement.

And the saddest part of it all is that TOP has been quite upfront and honest about their behaviour - they have explained, beyond any necessary requirement, every action they've taken and why they made that decision and even the thought process behind that statement. So while you feel fit to stand there and pass judgement, I feel fit to stand here and correct your errors and try to show you where you stepped off the path.

I look forward though to understanding what I've done to bring out your hatred.

[Heracles the Great]

Co-belligerents should have a certain amount of respect to work together and not leave their co-belligerents on the field alone. When the moderate party leaves the field it usually makes the situation worse as their moderating influence no longer exists. We (MK) were kinda tempted to do this over some disagreements with PC over TPF's terms, but quickly decided we wouldn't leave them hanging out to dry and our staying involved worked out better for everyone as we could reason with and work to bring two mortal enemies to an acceptable compromise. If TOP had stayed in they could have better used their influence to get better terms for Echelon.

Nobody is saying what TOP could or should have done - they made a decision that they felt was the best course of action. Whether you or I agree with that is irrelevant at this moment. What was said is that they threw their fellow "Co-belligerents" under the preverbial bus by stating their reasons for leaving early and tried to use it as a PR stunt to gain favorism. They didn't - they found themselves in a war with comrades who were taking actions they could not condone and felt they had reached an impase inwhich no further progress could be made. They took their leave, explained their reasons, and went on their way - they were then attacked and belitteld for staying true to their beliefs and their values.

Is what you say true and is it possible that Echelon may have received better terms had TOP stayed in longer? Perhaps but we won't ever know. What we do know is what happened and some people enjoy trying to revise history to fit their statements. That is what is happening here, in my opinion, and why we are speaking up against those accusations.

[Azaghul]

Actually I said pretty much the opposite. Should the war break out and nothing could have been done beforehand (in the few days before the war) then you should defend all your allies regardless of "sides" in the war.

NpO declared that would be their path (though they didn't get caught in a situation anywhere near as big as TOP's).

Defending your allies doesn't mean supporting them in an aggressive war. Otherwise all MDPs might as well be MADPs.

Also if your allies are part of general sides, and what is important to them is that their side wins, "fighting" for both sides is asinine.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Azaghul

[Khyber]

Defending your allies doesn't mean supporting them in an aggressive war. Otherwise all MDPs might as well be MADPs.

This has always been TOP's belief, and I believe MHA as some of them have stated. We don't sign MADPs for a reason, if you want our assitance in an aggressive war which is what NPO did, then you have to convience us your cause is just.

[Drai]

Defending your allies doesn't mean supporting them in an aggressive war. Otherwise all MDPs might as well be MADPs.

Also if your allies are part of general sides, and what is important to them is that their side wins, "fighting" for both sides is asinine.

That's why I said defend all your allies, not attack with them.

As for the second part, it could prove to be a disadvantage for both sides, but it may also reduce damages to your allies collectively which would be a positive.

[DogeWilliam]

The women in my nation all officially have their panties in a knot over this thread.

Edited October 15, 2009 by DogeWilliam

[BamaBuc]

It must just be that you can't understand whatever language cupcakes use. He did not bring up 'allies', it was someone else. So yes, TOP threw alliances under the bus, just. as. he. stated.

I'm fairly certain that he edited the post, hence the confusion. I also seem to remember seeing "allies". Green, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

-Bama

[Delta1212]

I'm fairly certain that he edited the post, hence the confusion. I also seem to remember seeing "allies". Green, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

-Bama

The post hasn't been edited.

[mattski133]

Point being made by this thread is not really the political maneuvering that put the alliances in question where they ended up, so much as, these alliances were allied to multiple sides and waited until the last minute to make a decision on the right side to take.

It's pretty straightforward.

I'm not sure there is a true 100% lesson to be learned here, but it seems that these alliances in question are not taking steps to prevent a similar reoccurance so much as trying to defend their stance (which is, we chose our real allies from a cluster of people we agreed were all allies beforehand but then ultimately when things got heated maybe had to take a closer look at their actions) besides the ODN, who have totally revamped their FA policy.

Which is one reason why I've placed great faith in them. I can't see myself giving any thought to an alliance that signs a treaty paying attention only to the words included in it, as to whether or not they will ultimately show up; read: MDoAP, we'll defend you, but we'll have to think about it if you enter a war on the offensive.

Alliances allied to tR won't have to worry about that. Unprofitable, maybe. Reliable? Always. That's what I hope for in a military treaty.

[BamaBuc]

The post hasn't been edited.

One more thing I could have sworn I saw. Never mind then, sorry Greenie.

-Bama

[Essenia]

They attempted to throw RoK and GOD under the bus with what amounted to nothing more than a smear topic to garner some PR for themselves, which thankfully backfired, and people quickly saw through the attempt.

Yes, they did not participate in absurd terms that were born out of personal grudges. The execution was botched somewhat, yes, but if you want to talk about alliances being "moral" which is what so many people like to harp on I find it rather rather amusing to complain about TOP in that situation.

[relyt92]

Hey guys I'm part of the new PRT.

[Titus Pullo]

Hey guys I'm part of the new PRT.

I fully expect royalties for using my likeness...

[Feanor Noldorin]

More propaganda please.

[Caliph]

Um ...how is NPO listed at 0?

This "poll" is more based towards the last year, not so much the entire history. If you blast TOP and MHA for leaving Q before the war, also blast NPO for pulling out of the WUT after it was attacked and link \m/ GOONS gen[m]ay TPF as having had MPoAP with NPO the NPO didn't uphold.

If you're going to do this, do it right, or don't do it at all.

[relyt92]

Um ...how is NPO listed at 0?

This "poll" is more based towards the last year, not so much the entire history. If you blast TOP and MHA for leaving Q before the war, also blast NPO for pulling out of the WUT after it was attacked and link \m/ GOONS gen[m]ay TPF as having had MPoAP with NPO the NPO didn't uphold.

If you're going to do this, do it right, or don't do it at all.

As he said, this is only for the Karma war.