BAPS response to UPN

[M6 Redneck]

In a duel one side challenges, (UPN), the otherside choooses the weapons, (BAPS).

Seems fair, seems consistent that UPN back out.

Lesson here is that UPN have trousers > minerals.

\M/6

[Hakim]

[quote name='Tautology' date='10 June 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1276211953' post='2332306']
UPN wants one type of duel and BAPS wants another and it won't be easy for them to find common ground. Under these circumstances, each side should nominate a champion, agree some standard "win" criteria, and let the champions fight it out for a week. If UPN's champion wins, the duel is done their way. If BAPS' champion wins, they decide the duel format.
[/quote]

This man is wise...a champions duel to decide the terms...me likes a lot

[wickedj]

[quote name='Tautology' date='10 June 2010 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1276211953' post='2332306']
UPN wants one type of duel and BAPS wants another and it won't be easy for them to find common ground. Under these circumstances, each side should nominate a champion, agree some standard "win" criteria, and let the champions fight it out for a week. If UPN's champion wins, the duel is done their way. If BAPS' champion wins, they decide the duel format.
[/quote]
let CJ and Altheus fight for the right(TO PAAARRRTTAAYY) to decide who uses whos rules

Edit: Oops..

Edited June 10, 2010 by wickedj

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='wickedj' date='10 June 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1276212934' post='2332329']
let CJ and Altheus fight for the fight(TO PAAARRRTTAAYY) to decide who uses whos rules
[/quote]

It's fight for the right, idiot.

[wickedj]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='10 June 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1276213021' post='2332331']
It's fight for the right, idiot.
[/quote]
Oops. fixing....

[joracy]

[quote name='Tautology' date='10 June 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1276211953' post='2332306']
UPN wants one type of duel and BAPS wants another and it won't be easy for them to find common ground. Under these circumstances, each side should nominate a champion, agree some standard "win" criteria, and let the champions fight it out for a week. If UPN's champion wins, the duel is done their way. If BAPS' champion wins, they decide the duel format.
[/quote]

Wait, they can't agree to the rules of a duel, so they should come together and [u]create rules for a separate duel[/u] to decide the rules of the first duel? I'm not so sure how well that would work :v

[Xiphosis]

[quote]Yeah, this might be a blood feud, but BAPS are not that arrogant to pull that off, not to mention it'll bring other Purple alliances into the fray on both sides.[/quote]

It's kind of silly to call BAPS arrogant, given the circumstances.

[hizzy]

they should have TWO duels! first one way, then the other!

[Requia]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='10 June 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1276210344' post='2332258']
I bet 1000 tech on UPN
[/quote]

I'll take that bet, assuming nobody else has yet.

Edit: Assuming terms are as stated in the OP. Different terms may require a different bet.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Requia

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='10 June 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1276210344' post='2332258']
I bet 1000 tech on UPN
[/quote]
LOL Ill take that bet

[quote name='wickedj' date='10 June 2010 - 07:06 PM' timestamp='1276211172' post='2332286']
Also i forgot to ask this earlier, has Stumpy approved of this? His Majesty will be quite unhappy to find his people fighting amongst themselves like this
[/quote]
his trusty paladins are overseeing and shall ensure all goes well.

[quote name='Atlashill' date='10 June 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1276212387' post='2332315']
Which is what C&G probably want, another chance to turn Stumpy's kingdom into a digital cesspool.

Yeah, this might be a blood feud, but BAPS are not that arrogant to pull that off, not to mention it'll bring other Purple alliances into the fray on both sides.
[/quote]

Nope all PURPLE alliances will be on the same side.

[Alterego]

[quote name='hizzy' date='11 June 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1276213281' post='2332338']
they should have TWO duels! first one way, then the other!
[/quote]
I agree to that. We can do it our way first.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Is this the beginning of a slow death for UPN? Has Christmas come early?

[joracy]

[quote name='hizzy' date='10 June 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1276213281' post='2332338']
they should have TWO duels! first one way, then the other!
[/quote]

TBH, one UPNs way, one BAPS way, and then a 1v1 between two champions. Best two our of three?

[Captain Flinders]

I don't think it's unreasonable for UPN to reject those terms. Nor do I see it as cowardice. A friendly skirmish is one thing, while an alliance wide nuclear free for all is quite another. One promotes combat experience, camaraderie, and entertainment. The other can offer those as well but with the nasty side effects of considerable loses, not to mention rebuilding time and money. If someone asks for a skirmish and you offer full out war, there is no cowardice in them declining. If they wanted a war they would have asked for it.

having said that, I don't know who I'd put my money on for winning an all out slugfest. BAPS are scrappy and resilient !@#$%^&*.

[Samotopia]

Again...i am late to this party. And again, i will just agree with the ODNistas.

But Goodluck to UPN. You really should accept these terms. If BAPS is ignorant enough to think that they can fight 3v1 for 30 days and still come out on top, then so be it.

[Stealthkill]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' date='10 June 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1276213888' post='2332354']
I don't think it's unreasonable for UPN to reject those terms. Nor do I see it as cowardice. A friendly skirmish is one thing, while an alliance wide nuclear free for all is quite another. One promotes combat experience, camaraderie, and entertainment. The other can offer those as well but with the nasty side effects of considerable loses, not to mention rebuilding time and money. If someone asks for a skirmish and you offer full out war, there is no cowardice in them declining. If they wanted a war they would have asked for it.

having said that, I don't know who I'd put my money on for winning an all out slugfest. BAPS are scrappy and resilient !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]
Of course BAPS would win, that's why UPN's backing out.

[Hakim]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' date='10 June 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1276213888' post='2332354']
I don't think it's unreasonable for UPN to reject those terms. Nor do I see it as cowardice. A friendly skirmish is one thing, while an [b]alliance wide nuclear free for all is quite another.[/b] One promotes combat experience, camaraderie, and entertainment. The other can offer those as well but with the nasty side effects of considerable loses, not to mention rebuilding time and money. If someone asks for a skirmish and you offer full out war, there is no cowardice in them declining. If they wanted a war they would have asked for it.

having said that, I don't know who I'd put my money on for winning an all out slugfest. BAPS are scrappy and resilient !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]

But UPN agreed on that point..at least Peggy Sue did not have a comment for that article of terms

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Samotopia' date='10 June 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1276213978' post='2332356']
Again...i am late to this party. And again, i will just agree with the ODNistas.

But Goodluck to UPN. You really should accept these terms. If BAPS is ignorant enough to think that they can fight 3v1 for 30 days and still come out on top, then so be it.
[/quote]

You obviously dont know bapsters very well

[White Chocolate]

LOL. I looked on the wiki to see if either UPN or BAPS had any policies regarding voting by membership on treaties that required military action. The reason is because if you have them, I'm guessing the entire membership in both alliances has NOT voted on this issue (i.e. an all out "war" affecting the entire membership - assuming UPN accepted BAPS offer...which if the leaders of UPN give in to all the baiting going on may happen).

However, I found nothing that said it was required. Thus, at least according to what is available on the wiki, the leaders of both alliances are free to drag everyone else in their respective alliances into a "duel" involving nukes that would last for 30 days if they wish.

Have fun with that.

[atlashill]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='10 June 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1276213550' post='2332343']
Nope all PURPLE alliances will be on the same side.
[/quote]
To my knowledge, Legion still retains an MDoAP with UPN.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='Hakim' date='10 June 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1276214111' post='2332362']
But UPN agreed on that point..at least Peggy Sue did not have a comment for that article of terms
[/quote]
They agreed on the nuclear part, not the 'alliance wide' part.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Atlashill' date='10 June 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1276214568' post='2332373']
To my knowledge, Legion still retains an MDoAP with UPN.
[/quote]
They may i dont know.

[jer]

[quote name='RePePe' date='11 June 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1276210923' post='2332280']
Well, I guess we can't argue about semantics any longer. It would be terribly embarrassing for a leader of a large alliance to throw down a gauntlet without understanding such a simple word as "duel."[/quote]
Why would you need to argue about semantics when the initial challenge was expressly clear as to the terms of engagement?

"I would like to propose a small-scale engagement between an alliance that apparently has a lot of hatred to work through and a portion of UPN. ... A one-on-one interaction with even numbers that just might help create a different relation than the one that exists."

Maybe you could try to understand those simple words before giving your take on the situation. Peggy's challenge and this challenge are totally different. BAPS rejected UPN's challenge and presented their own, which UPN have also chosen to reject. Two challenges... two rejections. So, it's pretty odd (who am I kidding, it's not odd, this partisan nonsense was entirely predictable) to try and label one side as cowardly when BOTH sides have shied away from the challenge of the opposition thus far.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='White Chocolate' date='11 June 2010 - 11:01 AM' timestamp='1276214464' post='2332369']
LOL. I looked on the wiki to see if either UPN or BAPS had any policies regarding voting by membership on treaties that required military action. The reason is because if you have them, I'm guessing the entire membership in both alliances has NOT voted on this issue (i.e. an all out "war" affecting the entire membership - assuming UPN accepted BAPS offer...which if the leaders of UPN give in to all the baiting going on may happen).

However, I found nothing that said it was required. Thus, at least according to what is available on the wiki, the leaders of both alliances are free to drag everyone else in their respective alliances into a "duel" involving nukes that would last for 30 days if they wish.

Have fun with that.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, not all alliances are democratic, and the members can leave if they don't like how it runs. Although, I don't see the connection between membership voting on treaties requiring military action, and an alliance duel.

[Itsuki Koizumi]

aww man. Nuclear radiation here we go