Senekis Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 You're a prisoner in so much that you can't declare war on those fighting TPF+allies for the duration of the war. That's the exact same thing included in alliance wide white peace. Then why not make them sign something along those lines and let them go? You know... the prisoner title is a big hit for a nation's sovereignty and pride. It's natural that some will look at it with despite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senekis Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Hmm, so you think nations that surrender should not have to remove their "uniform" when they surrender? Because thats what the alliance affiliation change is akin to. Oh, yeah, make them remove their uniform but don't force them to use clown's clothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Oh, yeah, make them remove their uniform but don't force them to use clown's clothing. I don't see how it is clown's clothing to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Then why not make them sign something along those lines and let them go? You know... the prisoner title is a big hit for a nation's sovereignty and pride. It's natural that some will look at it with despite. This isn't really daycare. It's not their responsibility to take everyone's pride into consideration. Not sure how you can be much nicer besides paying them while they're POW's. If they feel so disrespected, they're always free to fight. No one is forcing them to do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senekis Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I don't see how it is clown's clothing to be honest. I find Whatever PoW AA offensive and against the sovereignty of a nation. If the point is to make them remove TPF as their AA, I think stating such term is enough. The clown's clothing was an (bad, perhaps) analogy that is irrelevant to the discussion. If the point is to take out the uniforms, I don't see the need to make them wear a particular kind of clothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Because it's a lot easier to see if those who surrendered are aiding your enemies or attacking your nations if they're in a PoW AA. It's called strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sci Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 See: GARO GATO's Minister of Domestic Affairs is an idiot and all of GATO is blamed for it. He didn't even have any power in terms of foreign affairs, and GATO is blamed. I disagreed with it then, and I disagree with it now, but it doesn't matter. The leaders represent the alliance. What they do is what the entire alliance does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senekis Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 This isn't really daycare. It's not their responsibility to take everyone's pride into consideration. Not sure how you can be much nicer besides paying them while they're POW's. If they feel so disrespected, they're always free to fight. No one is forcing them to do anything. I think some of them were forced into this fight (by Mhawk or the aggressors, that's not the point here) and that should be taken into consideration. Because it's a lot easier to see if those who surrendered are aiding your enemies or attacking your nations if they're in a PoW AA.It's called strategy. Fair enough. Although there are less offensive AAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Fair enough. Although there are less offensive AAs. So it's come down to the name of the AA? How about "Athens Hotel" would that be better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senekis Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 So it's come down to the name of the AA? How about "Athens Hotel" would that be better? Yeah, sounds better. I think there's something disgusting with the word "prisoner", as I'm trying to defend what I stated in the OP. I dislike the idea of being a prisoner because of someone else's crimes, but that may be just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Yeah, sounds better. I think there's something disgusting with the word "prisoner", as I'm trying to defend what I stated in the OP. I dislike the idea of being a prisoner because of someone else's crimes, but that may be just me. But they are prisoners. If they weren't, they'd be allowed to leave. But being prisoners doesn't make them criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I find Whatever PoW AA offensive and against the sovereignty of a nation. If the point is to make them remove TPF as their AA, I think stating such term is enough. The clown's clothing was an (bad, perhaps) analogy that is irrelevant to the discussion. If the point is to take out the uniforms, I don't see the need to make them wear a particular kind of clothing. Yes, because letting those that have surrendered go to random AA's makes keeping an eye on them a reasonably simple task, right? As far as sovereignty is concerned, their sovereign right is to stay in their alliance and fight or surrender under the terms presented for individual surrender. If adopting a PoW AA is the beggest concern in those terms then I'd say they are reasonable terms. The reason they have to wear the same "clothing" is so they can be watched more easily because it is not unknown for those surrendering to not comply with the terms of surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) I'm not anti government, anarchist or something of that kind. (I'm in the NSO after all)I'm simply against paying for what someone did behind you, like in this case which is pretty peculiar because most of TPF's population never saw it coming. I am truly sorry for any that are really in that situation, but at the same time I, quite honestly, find it difficult to imagine in this case. Do people do absolutely zero checking up on alliances before they join them? This is TPF. I dont get how anyone could make any effort at all to check them out before joining (due diligence?) and still be surprised at what has happened. I'm pretty sure what mhawk believed is the only thing that matters. ORLY? So if I convince myself that you are going to do something horrible to me, it's jolly fine and dandy for me to jump you right now as a preventative act, right? Drag my whole alliance in, trash your whole alliance, whatever, it's all justified, just because I claim to believe something that would justify that action? No need for any evidence, or any good reason for me to have thought that, let alone for it actually to have been true... interesting theory there. Of course it could be exploited in an endless series of absurd ways, especially if your leader is mentally ill to begin with. Meh. One final note. I understand where Senekis is coming from about not liking the POW AA. I also see the practical reasons it is used though. I dont have a good solution for it. Edited December 30, 2009 by Sigrun Vapneir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 And you cannot debate that it makes no sense at all. Actually, I agree entirely. Planet Bob makes no sense. My solution to the problem was to become an alliance leader myself. That way, at least if I did something that someone could use as a CB, I did it and not someone else. In retrospect, I wouldn't advise doing that unless you can afford a ton of time away from your own domestic matters (OCC: real life). There are alliances out there that work very hard to stay out of war if that's what you want. They take time to find and they are not fool proof. Start checking out neutral alliances. Or you can be non-aligned. Yeah, you have to deal with "tech raids" every other day but compare that to having to be on the wrong end of a war once or twice a year and make your own decision. If you come up with any other ideas, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Tolkien Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I was about to rip you to pieces but then I realized this thread wasn't about me making no sense D:I will enjoy reading this thread, because you seem believe in your posts and have logic behind it, if I see anything I can comment on I will be sure to do so. Bob, it's alright. You make no sense anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerichoholic Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 I'm pretty sure the general Japanese populace didn't know about the planning of the Rape of Nanking or the planning of the attack on Pearl Harbor by Old Earth's country of Japan, but they sure as hell paid for it. Similarly, the general populace of nations in Bob's alliances pay for the actions of their leaders. It sucks, it isn't fair, but that's the way it goes. The little guy always gets squashed while the big guys sit back and watch the fireworks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godwin Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 The Legion went through this exact same thing a year or so ago with Purplegate, where the Prime Minister at the time seriously $%&@ed up and we effectively got rolled for it (TPF being a contributor to that, coincidentally enough). So understand that I completely know where you're coming from with this, and I agree, to a point. The thing I think you're missing though is the WHY behind all of it. Yes, in a perfectly fair world, when mhawk $%&@ed up he and the others who contributed to the situation would be ousted from TPF and the alliance not punished at all. However, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration. In most situations like this, the situation was just a "last straw" sort of thing, where the alliance who got spied on or whatever really wanted to beat the !@#$ out of the other alliance and now has a publicly acceptable excuse to do so. Doesn't matter whether they did anything wrong or not, it's a chance to beat the !@#$ out of them. So, really, nothing's going to change. :/ 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.