commander thrawn Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 (edited) [quote name='FreddieMercury' date='08 February 2010 - 02:36 AM' timestamp='1265596578' post='2167855'] Umbrella could have attacked without the whole esoteric activating of treaties and it would have been the same thing, though people would have would have bawwed more about bandwagoning or something; like how CnG tries to play the pity game with Citadel's pre-empt, when it was inevitable CnG was going to enter the conflict anyway. [/quote] You know Umbrella would have been ripped on so hard if they did that. Edit: word choice change Edited February 8, 2010 by commander thrawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieMercury Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='commander thrawn' date='08 February 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1265597057' post='2167870'] You know Umbrella would have been trolled so hard if they did that. [/quote] Yeah, hopefully that changes over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucasSnow Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='FreddieMercury' date='07 February 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1265596578' post='2167855'] Umbrella could have attacked without the whole esoteric activating of treaties and it would have been the same thing, though people would have would have bawwed more about bandwagoning or something; like how CnG tries to play the pity game with Citadel's pre-empt, when it was inevitable CnG was going to enter the conflict anyway. [/quote] While they could have yes; it obviously wasn't a politically sound move when IRON and TOP did it. Why would Umbrella want to bring on the same type of bad publicity? Note: No insult intended to any alliance, you guys just jumped the gun, and there is no denying you lost some political pull in doing it. (OOC: Them OWFers are harsh no?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreddieMercury Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='LucasSnow' date='08 February 2010 - 02:50 AM' timestamp='1265597405' post='2167882'] While they could have yes; it obviously wasn't a politically sound move when IRON and TOP did it. Why would Umbrella want to bring on the same type of bad publicity? Note: No insult intended to any alliance, you guys just jumped the gun, and there is no denying you lost some political pull in doing it. (OOC: Them OWFers are harsh no?) [/quote] Besides all the vitriol filled insults on the boards (which, is mostly populated by your side anyways) I honestly don't think TOP/IRON lost a significant amount of political capital. Citadel was already unwinding during the TPF conflict, and the only edge TOP lost was probably bringing Polar's allies back in with Polar after the initial peace with \m/, and even then it was bound to be sketchy. I guess you could make an argument that TOP's pre-empt was what ultimately pushed Polar to pull all of those actions, though I haven't seen the full discussions between TOP and Grub, so I'm not sure there. 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.