gantanX Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Please Stay on Topic guys.. I hate to see this Amazing Thread got locked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It's quite silly of some of you to take Jack so seriously. I don't think anyone in Karma, myself included, envies the situation TOP found themselves in. This thread is really more of a satirical look at the consequences of spreading oneself across the treaty web and anyone who takes a serious affront to it should recognize the point and stop viewing it as some sort of attack on their credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This thread almost want me to give out the SilverHawk Award. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This thread almost want me to give out the SilverHawk Award. It is a truly coveted symbol of overreaction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 In reference to your argument, however, I argue that it is certainly possible to buy back from ZI to 10,000+ infra if one has a sizable warchest. Matt Miller is proof enough of that. It may be possible, but it really isn't a good example (although it's certainly an interesting one, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up) because Matt Miller was in the top 10 nations for something ridicoulous like 1-2 years. For the vast majority of people, building up that kind of a warchest simply isn't an option due to the actual time constraints involved in doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deSouza Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 It may be possible, but it really isn't a good example (although it's certainly an interesting one, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up) because Matt Miller was in the top 10 nations for something ridicoulous like 1-2 years. For the vast majority of people, building up that kind of a warchest simply isn't an option due to the actual time constraints involved in doing so. Most people cant spare 15 minutes at every 19 days? (back then) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I went back through ye olde STA forum and did find such evidence (sorry STA, I hope you don't kill me for leaking this!). Our war secrets! D: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I've actually corrected all mistakes that people have brought to my attention, you can see that on the first page, but I've yet to see TOP claim anything false that I actually stated. I also fail to see how I feel any kind of personal defeat, a lot of notable people are enjoying this, i made it happen. You list TOP as having 'denied military assistance' to x number of allies. It'd have been difficult to deny military assistance to Q, given that we were no longer part of the bloc when it went to war (note that the involvement of many of those who were in Q during the war could just as well have been due to other treaties as well, given that many of them had overlapping treaties with the NPO). As for the rest, it's rather difficult to deny military assistance to an ally when it is neither required by the treaty nor requested by the allies in question. As such, your changes only reflect a further lack of information. Per your quote of Khyber: note that he was not in TOP government during the Karma War, nor is he in government now, and as such his opinion should not necessarily be taken as being representative of the TOP membership's general sentiments on the matter. However, since you have knowingly taken one general member's opinion as demonstrative of that of the entire alliance, does that mean that we should take your slander of TOP as representative of your entire alliance's feelings toward us? Edited October 13, 2009 by Crymson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 That was somewhat entertaining Jack. However, you know the saying goes: "You have lies, damned lies, and statistics." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 That was somewhat entertaining Jack.However, you know the saying goes: "You have lies, damned lies, and statistics." Did you just imply that Citadel collect lies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You list TOP as having 'denied military assistance' to x number of allies. It'd have been difficult to deny military assistance to Q, given that we were no longer part of the bloc when it went to war (note that the involvement of many of those who were in Q during the war could just as well have been due to other treaties as well, given that many of them had overlapping treaties with the NPO). As for the rest, it's rather difficult to deny military assistance to an ally when it is neither required by the treaty nor requested by the allies in question.As such, your changes only reflect a further lack of information. Per your quote of Khyber: you should note that he was not in government during the Karma, nor is he government now. His opinion should be not be held as representative of TOP's overall opinion on the subject, just as your evident opinion of TOP as cowards and stat collectors is not taken as the overall opinion of your alliance. Again---nice try. You canceled on the continuum on the eve of war, that's why in my stats it says "canceled within 5 days of partner being attacked", its exactly what you did. Successful survivalist alliances cancel their treaties a few days before war begins, its what defines them, you are a prime example. Also, if your MDoAP and MDP treaties do not require you to defend your partner, they are obviously an ODP, and should be listed as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Did you just imply that Citadel collect lies? That's for you to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneLOL Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Yo TOP, I was just in #athens right, heard these two dudes talkin' and one of them said to the other one, that they knew someone, who said you guys are infra huggers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You canceled on the continuum on the eve of war, that's why in my stats it says "canceled within 5 days of partner being attacked", its exactly what you did. Successful survivalist alliances cancel their treaties a few days before war begins, its what defines them, you are a prime example. You've chosen to ignore everything we've said regarding the subject. We've mentioned the facts that we'd been discussing exit from the Continuum for quite awhile before this and the fact that we simply cannot move that quickly as an alliance given our style of voting; while you can choose to either ignore these or not, a more demonstrable fact is that our notice of intent to exit the bloc was served before the issue between OV and TPF/NPO erupted. Given that we gave our intent of notice to leave before it was even hinted that a major war might erupt between those alliances---and given, indeed, that the alliance vote regarding our potential exit from the Continuum was held the day before our notice was served, thus increasing the time between our decision and the war to something in the realm of 100 hours---how could it be possible that we canceled as a result of fears of the war that erupted soon afterward? I mentioned this in my initial response to you. Why did you choose to ignore it? Also, if your MDoAP and MDP treaties do not require you to defend your partner, they are obviously an ODP, and should be listed as such. By that rationale, you'd be eliminating a good portion of all of the MDPs that exist on Planet Bob, as a tremendous number of them have no-chaining clauses; and unless you've no brain to go along with your head, you know full well the good reasons for MDPs to have such clauses. Edited October 13, 2009 by Crymson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You've chosen to ignore everything we've said regarding the subject. We've mentioned the facts that we'd been discussing exit from the Continuum for quite awhile before this and the fact that we simply cannot move that quickly as an alliance given our style of voting; while you can choose to either ignore these or not, a more demonstrable fact is that our notice of intent to exit the bloc was served before the issue between OV and TPF/NPO erupted. Given that we gave our intent of notice to leave before it was even hinted that a major war might erupt between those alliances---and given, indeed, that the alliance vote regarding our potential exit from the Continuum was held the day before our notice was served, thus increasing the time between our decision and the war to something in the realm of 100 hours---how could it be possible that we canceled as a result of fears of the war that erupted soon afterward? I mentioned this in my initial response to you. Why did you choose to ignore it? I really don't care when you started thinking about withdrawing from the continuum, my stats are recording when you actually did leave. I never said you left continuum out of fear of war or anything like that, I said you left continuum within 5 days of continuum being involved in a war, and it's exactly what happened, have fun trying to dispute that, when we have a public record right here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54723 By that rationale, you'd be eliminating a good portion of all of the MDPs that exist on Planet Bob, as a tremendous number of them have no-chaining clauses; and unless you've no brain to go along with your head, you know full well the good reasons for MDPs to have such clauses. I was going to sort the chaining, from the non chaining before, and you said it didn't matter. All in all, I think you should stop taking this so seriously. EDIT: always just that one typo.. Edited October 13, 2009 by Jack Diorno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabioviejo Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Did you ever learn to count? Q was one treaty, not 5, not 4, not 3......... If you meant alliances then say alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Something like that. I'm sure hes had more fun in this game then most of the garden variety infra collectors. Yeah I bet it's fun to fight alongside a battalion full of inexperienced newcomers who really have almost no impact on the conclusion of a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Did you ever learn to count? Q was one treaty, not 5, not 4, not 3.........If you meant alliances then say alliances. TOP had 5 treaties, one being continuum, another being Citadel, another being an MDP with OG, then an MDoAP with Valhalla and MCXA. Those treaties collectively tied you to 7 alliances that were not defended. You learn to count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabioviejo Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 TOP had 5 treaties, one being continuum, another being Citadel, another being an MDP with OG, then an MDoAP with Valhalla and MCXA. Those treaties collectively tied you to 7 alliances that were not defended. You learn to count. The Order of the Paradox Cancelled within 5 days of partner being attacked 1 treaty MDoAP with TPF, IRON, OG, NPO, MCXA, NATO, Valhalla - Continuum http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54723 Notified of cancellation on Apr 18 2009 – 2 days before Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW 2 treaty MDoAP with Valhalla - The Crown of the North Compact http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54926 Notified of cancellation on Apr 22 2009 – 2 days after Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW 1 no assistance Treaty partner attacked, no assistance provided MDoAP Old Guard – Citadel No forum link Available 1 no assistance (same alliance, so why count it twice?) MDP with Old Guard – MDP (another separate treaty) No forum link Available 2 no assistance MDoAP - MCXA http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55476 Notified of cancellation on Apr 26 2009 – 6 days after Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW Total treaties cancelled/no assistance: 5 Wait, 5 or 2? You listed 2. Total Allies not defended/cancelled: 7 You listed 3, where are the remaining 4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The Order of the ParadoxCancelled within 5 days of partner being attacked 1 treaty MDoAP with TPF, IRON, OG, NPO, MCXA, NATO, Valhalla - Continuum http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54723 Notified of cancellation on Apr 18 2009 – 2 days before Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW 2 treaty MDoAP with Valhalla - The Crown of the North Compact http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54926 Notified of cancellation on Apr 22 2009 – 2 days after Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW 1 no assistance Treaty partner attacked, no assistance provided MDoAP Old Guard – Citadel No forum link Available 1 no assistance (same alliance, so why count it twice?) MDP with Old Guard – MDP (another separate treaty) No forum link Available 2 no assistance MDoAP - MCXA http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55476 Notified of cancellation on Apr 26 2009 – 6 days after Karma war starts with NPO’s DoW Total treaties cancelled/no assistance: 5 Wait, 5 or 2? You listed 2. Total Allies not defended/cancelled: 7 You listed 3, where are the remaining 4? Each of those is a separate treaty, if you have more then one treaty with the same alliance it is still counted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myzebedeeistaken Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Each of those is a separate treaty, if you have more then one treaty with the same alliance it is still counted. Why is that Jack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 While I agree with some points raiseds for TOP members in this thread, I have one question: If I remember correctly TOP entered in Karma side via optional defense/offense articles/treaties right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Most people cant spare 15 minutes at every 19 days? (back then) I meant being in the top 10 for over a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Why is that Jack? The simple answer would be 'common sense'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildThing Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 However, since you have knowingly taken one general member's opinion as demonstrative of that of the entire alliance, does that mean that we should take your slander of TOP as representative of your entire alliance's feelings toward us? I was under the impression Athens, and C&G as a whole were no fans of TOP long before this thread came about so yes, I would say taking Jack's opinion as demonstrative of that of the entire alliance would be reasonable. Jealousy. how could it be possible that we canceled as a result of fears of the war that erupted soon afterward? To be fair the Karma War could be seen building from miles off and while it was never absolutely clear who would win, after the logdumps in December and Ragnarok surviving unscathed it was reasonable to suspect NPO dominance was on the decline. Discussions about dropping Q months prior to the war don't really do anything to shrug the survivalist tag. I still TOP though. 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.