Druss the Legend Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 If only TPF's allies had balls and/or Honor... One can dream right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Näktergal Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 That is why you do not sign such a treaty with whomever. Mutual defense could mean mutual destruction and it often is.But once that paper is signed and you give your word, you are expected to uphold it. In a game with a player turnover rate like the one CN has, it's entirely possible that you can be on wonderful terms with an alliance, and then even a few months later, the entire leadership of said alliance has changed and their stance on general policy is completely different from when you signed the treaty with them. It's even possible that, if nothing blatant occurs to give away those shifts, you will have absolutely no idea just how much that alliance has changed until they do something completely idiotic or incredibly offensive in public. Thus, the first signs that they're no longer the same alliance you made that agreement with might be the exact moment when you are also going to be expected to defend them from the consequences of their own reprehensible or foolish actions. Is it less honorable to take a moral stand and tell your allies you can no longer support them because of their actions? Or to completely sacrifice every principle you have solely because you made an agreement with people months ago who may not even BE in the other alliance anymore, when said alliance clearly has absolutely no regard for what sort of consequences their actions are going to have for you? One of the major arguments during the Coalition War and Karma War was that "Friends > Infra". That there are things more important than simple pixels on a screen. Yet what you are essentially saying is that "Paper" isn't just more important than "Friends" (if a treaty would force you to fight against people you like and respect), it's more important than every other consideration, ever. If I married someone in real life (about as close as individuals can get to signing a "treaty" of mutual support), and they were wonderful and sweet and considerate for the entire time I knew them, and then, spontaneously, for no good reason I could see and with no obvious advanced warning, they gunned down three kids and two cops, then ran home and wanted me to help them make a getaway, should I feel obligated to do it? If the SWAT team shows up and surrounds the house, and my husband decides he's going to go out in a blaze of glory, should I feel obligated to pick up a gun and join in? Or should my own revulsion for what he did and my desire to not get shot for something I had nothing to do with and consider to have been a horrible act trump the "agreement" between us? Would you say that the fact that I failed to magically foresee his actions in advance and divorce him before he did it somehow makes me morally and legally responsible for his actions, and obligated to defend and support him no matter what happens? And if I did choose to leave him to his fate, to suffer the inevitable consequences of his own freely chosen actions, would you think that it would be right if everyone from that point on treated me like a horrible person? "Sure, he shot five innocent people," they'd say, "but you MARRIED him. You're a horrible person because you didn't join him in his rampage!" The idea of "Loyalty > All" might be comforting in a gang-mentality sort of way, but it isn't very practical in the real world. And it also doesn't take into account that, if you're going to expect someone to stay loyal to you, maybe you should stay loyal to them. And not just in a "letter of the law" sort of way, but in the true spirit of the original agreement. And if you drag other people into your messes because you're doing incredibly stupid things and not considering the consequences to yourself or others, what exactly have you done to EARN the loyalty you're demanding? Why do you DESERVE to have people stand by you no matter what, when you've shown absolutely no respect or consideration for THEM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 I've got 3mil saved up that says nobody will come to TPF's aid Mr. Vespassianus. If you really think someone will, then send me a PM and I'll take this bet up with you. Deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taget Posted December 28, 2009 Report Share Posted December 28, 2009 TPF's allies are pretty loyal. I expect everyone with an MDP or higher will be in. But given that this took everyone by surprise I'd expect some time will be needed to organize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted December 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 All 274 that voted "tomorrow" just got owned. PLEASE TRY AGAIN. /me is disappointed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 bumping this cuz its troo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maicke Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 i voted never yesterday night, and so far im winning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zizka Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Anyone else feel like they've just been blue-balled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empirica Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Somebody has money on this right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 2-3 Days of warchests wont help. Your alliance should be ready to roll in 8ish hours at least, a day at most. There is no strategy here, all that's happening is TPF is burning more and more. That being said, I do think they will have some allies supporting, but the delay just shows their quality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 If only TPF's allies had balls and/or Honor...One can dream right? If only warmongers had balls/honor and dowed who they really wanted to dow so the treaty web would work as intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 For a world that supposedly hates curb stomps, ya'll are suddenly anxious to initiate one, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) 2-3 Days of warchests wont help. Your alliance should be ready to roll in 8ish hours at least, a day at most. There is no strategy here, all that's happening is TPF is burning more and more.That being said, I do think they will have some allies supporting, but the delay just shows their quality. One could argue the amount of failed staggers from your allies proves that they're not of the caliber to roll in 8 hours, eh? Also, you're extremely naive if you think this entire delay is for 2-3 days of war chest building. EDIT: wording Edited December 29, 2009 by Zoomzoomzoom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zizka Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 2-3 Days of warchests wont help. Your alliance should be ready to roll in 8ish hours at least, a day at most. There is no strategy here, all that's happening is TPF is burning more and more.That being said, I do think they will have some allies supporting, but the delay just shows their quality. In the grand scheme of things, due to the size of TPF in relation to the forces suspected of coming to their aid having them "burn" alone for a few days really doesn't matter that much, as even at the absolute height of their strength they would be but a sideshow to the main fronts. If delaying for two days to shore up your "coalition" means watching them get half a million NS or so shaved off, its almost certainly a tradeoff in their favor. That said, it certainly is !@#$@#$ annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) For a world that supposedly hates curb stomps, ya'll are suddenly anxious to initiate one, eh? Wait wait...how does wanting large alliances to honor their treaties and fight other large alliances equate to wanting a curb stomp? That sounds like a desire for the opposite of curb stomp to me, how about you? Edit: And your extremely naive if you think it has any probative value. There are 3 things going on, the two that I listed before or people are running around convincing others to make good on their treaties, in which case they shouldn't have been signed in the first place (unless there is honest conflict). Edited December 29, 2009 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstills22 Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 how is everyone's sleep cycle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Wait wait...how does wanting large alliances to honor their treaties and fight other large alliances equate to wanting a curb stomp? That sounds like a desire for the opposite of curb stomp to me, how about you? Who ever said anything about not honoring treaties? There's something called strategy. Once again, though, it wasn't well used by the first attacks initiated upon TPF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Wait wait...how does wanting large alliances to honor their treaties and fight other large alliances equate to wanting a curb stomp? That sounds like a desire for the opposite of curb stomp to me, how about you?Edit: And your extremely naive if you think it has any probative value. There are 3 things going on, the two that I listed before or people are running around convincing others to make good on their treaties, in which case they shouldn't have been signed in the first place (unless there is honest conflict). Seriously? I thought this war was about TPF. If you want to fight someone else, be a man and DoW them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamven Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 how is everyone's sleep cycle not too good, atm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Who ever said anything about not honoring treaties? There's something called strategy. Once again, though, it wasn't well used by the first attacks initiated upon TPF. See my edit above, and believe me I know all about strategy...or wait, by strategy do you mean begging to honor treaties? Because if that number of minds are all willing and still can't come up with a battle plan in 48 full hours, your obviously all not on the same page and should just throw in the towel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 If only warmongers had balls/honor and dowed who they really wanted to dow so the treaty web would work as intended. Honoring treaties = warmongering? What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gstills22 Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 you guys are so funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 See my edit above, and believe me I know all about strategy...or wait, by strategy do you mean begging to honor treaties? Because if that number of minds are all willing and still can't come up with a battle plan in 48 full hours, your obviously all not on the same page and should just throw in the towel. @ your edit - If such strategy avoids such faults as seen by "your side," then nothing will have been in vain and probative value will have been earned. Throwing in the towel? I wouldn't dream of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Tomorrow. I'll be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpdogg Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 2010 vs the DoWs...WHO WILL WIN?! 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.