The Best Friend an Alliance Could Have

[Raider]

[quote name='alyster' timestamp='1284844044' post='2457467']
GATO has more votes than each Fark, IRON, FOK, TOP and TPF.

WTF is wrong with planet Bob?
[/quote]
Actually that sounds about right to me.

[flak attack]

[quote name='alyster' timestamp='1284844044' post='2457467']
GATO has more votes than each Fark, IRON, FOK, TOP and TPF.

WTF be wrong with planet Bob?
[/quote]
GATO deserves to be above IRON and TPF with absolutely no doubt and probably TOP as well. FOK and Fark be really good friends to have, but they aren't really all that vocal here, which be going to cause them to get fewer votes.

[alyster]

I disagree abit about IRON and TPF, especially TPF. Had TPF been your al.ly in past wars, ye would have seen very good and reliable friends. Anyway to compare them to GATO who abandons their fri.ends as soon as they smell a possible war, i.s just harsh.

Edited September 19, 2010 by alyster

[Duke Nukem]

Tbh and I really hate to say it but I think VE be probably some of the best hearties out thar that ye can get. They will defend ye no matter what and their nations will go to hell and back. Ex: Karma War (SethB of OV (VE's MDAP partner) got himself into a pickle and when NPO came with tanks VE wouldn't take it and struck back)

[flak attack]

[quote name='alyster' timestamp='1284939312' post='2458512']
I disagree abit about IRON and TPF, especially TPF. Had TPF been your al.ly in past wars, ye would have seen very good and reliable friends. Anyway to compare them to GATO who abandons their fri.ends as soon as they smell a possible war, i.s just harsh.
[/quote]
You do know that TPF was negotiating to surrender in UJW before it even started, right?

[Crowdog07]

TDSM8 will always be the best.

[mhawk]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1285004107' post='2459031']
You do know that TPF was negotiating to surrender in UJW before it even started, right?
[/quote]
I want you to make a list of current TPF leadership or within the last 12-18 months that were in UJW. Now make a list of mk members that were in TPF during UJW. Your simple one liners need some context to the last few years to be of any relevance. A majority of folks that had any clue what was going on in that war are likely in PC or other alliances by now. Actions should be associated more with those in power to execute them, rather than to any particular name in ones AA.

Edited September 20, 2010 by mhawk

[VIdiot the Great]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1285008903' post='2459082']
I want you to make a list of current TPF leadership or within the last 12-18 months that were in UJW. Now make a list of mk members that were in TPF during UJW. Your simple one liners need some context to the last few years to be of any relevance. A majority of folks that had any clue what was going on in that war are likely in PC or other alliances by now. [b]Actions should be associated more with those in power to execute them, rather than to any particular name in ones AA.[/b]
[/quote]

Respectfully, the bolded section above is incorrect. An alliance is an alliance, and they are on the hook for their leaders' actions, including past leaders' actions. Just because leader X made a treaty with alliance Y doesn't mean that all of a sudden, upon a change of leadership, the treaty is invalid. Otherwise, cancellations wouldn't be necessary as often as they are because 'oh, hey, the old leaders made that treaty, when we took over, it didn't exist anymore.' The reason that sounds ridiculous is because it is. An Alliance is a coherent body with changing parts. It has traditions, actions and mores that transcend any individual member or leader. Otherwise, rename it. So long as that alliance has that particular name, it takes the history of that alliance right along with it, the good, the bad and the ugly.

[mhawk]

[quote name='VIdiot the Great' timestamp='1285036873' post='2459559']
Respectfully, the bolded section above is incorrect. An alliance is an alliance, and they are on the hook for their leaders' actions, including past leaders' actions. Just because leader X made a treaty with alliance Y doesn't mean that all of a sudden, upon a change of leadership, the treaty is invalid. Otherwise, cancellations wouldn't be necessary as often as they are because 'oh, hey, the old leaders made that treaty, when we took over, it didn't exist anymore.' The reason that sounds ridiculous is because it is. An Alliance is a coherent body with changing parts. It has traditions, actions and mores that transcend any individual member or leader. Otherwise, rename it. So long as that alliance has that particular name, it takes the history of that alliance right along with it, the good, the bad and the ugly.
[/quote]
Comparing current probable actions to actions done years ago under different leaders is different than your analogy. A more accurate analogy would be, you are likely to defend alliance x, even though you havn't had a treaty with that alliance for 2-3 years, because 2-3 years ago you had a treaty! The fact you state dropping a treaty is possible once leadership decides to change further supports my point, arguing that one can't escape the past is like stating a new regime has no authority to cancel a treaty or a past, it must simply continue with what it was given.

If we ran an experiment with leader A and got result 1 several times, then changed to leader B and got result 2 several times, but never result 1. If I made you bet on what would happen with the next sequence of the experiment with leader B, what would you guess the result would be?

However I know you are stating the behavioral norms of CN. The rules here are made independent of logic or reason.

Edited September 21, 2010 by mhawk

[rsoxbronco1]

Basically, going into a losing war with TPF as your treaty partner, would you rather they be led by Slayer or mhawk.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='VIdiot the Great' timestamp='1285036873' post='2459559']
Respectfully, the bolded section above is incorrect. An alliance is an alliance, and they are on the hook for their leaders' actions, including past leaders' actions. Just because leader X made a treaty with alliance Y doesn't mean that all of a sudden, upon a change of leadership, the treaty is invalid. Otherwise, cancellations wouldn't be necessary as often as they are because 'oh, hey, the old leaders made that treaty, when we took over, it didn't exist anymore.' The reason that sounds ridiculous is because it is. An Alliance is a coherent body with changing parts. It has traditions, actions and mores that transcend any individual member or leader. Otherwise, rename it. So long as that alliance has that particular name, it takes the history of that alliance right along with it, the good, the bad and the ugly.
[/quote]


In the case of TPF literally the entire govt and almost the entire alliance has rolled over since the UJW, only 18 members of 134 current members were in TPF during UJW. I've been in TPF for over 1080 days and I wasn't around then. TPF is a name that has stood and it has good and bad history behind it. But it's a living organism and the actions taken by parts of the organism that no longer exist do not define it's current existance to the extent that Flinders or MK members still butthurt from UJP seem to like to spout on about. Hell, as mhawk pointed out some of the top govt from UJP era TPF are in MK and PC these days and have been for a looooooong time.

If our current allies are in here complaining about our commitment, if NPO is so hurt by how we handled Karma, then I'll be worried about where we stand. But I doubt you'll see that happen. Pacifica was so hurt by our actions during Karma that we are their only MADP level treaty and they recently dropped several billion dollars on our smaller nations to say thanks for what we gave up during that war. We still stand by them even though that is about the least popular decision you can possibly make on the entire planet these days. I honestly expect to get rolled again at some point due to being their ally but that is fine. I'll take it and rebuild.

As an alliance we have fought in every war any ally asked us to fight in for almost 3 years now, winning or losing. We stood in Karma and were pounded. We swung in the wind for day after day while getting curbstomped a few months later and didn't complain while our allies got organized. We entered another war to try and help out those same allies a very short time later after the ill-fated TOP/IRON strike.

We don't have the NS and nukes that we used to any more. They've been burned away from our peak. Just over 120 days total of 1 vs 3 nuclear war in a 8-10 month span will have that effect on your alliance. But you won't find this current version of TPF leaving any ally who asks for any kind of help out to dry.

[GDI Crossfire]

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' timestamp='1285043181' post='2459630']
Basically, going into a losing war with TPF as your treaty partner, would you rather they be led by Slayer or mhawk.
[/quote]

idk they r both great leaders

[Delta1212]

[quote name='crossfire477' timestamp='1285043977' post='2459641']
idk they r both great leaders
[/quote]
ha haha

Respect to mhawk, though.

[VIdiot the Great]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1285042823' post='2459626']
Comparing current probable actions to actions done years ago under different leaders is different than your analogy.[/quote]

My 'analogy' wasn't an analogy at all, just a statement of affairs. To wit: alliances even when they change leaders still have the treaties they had with the previous leaders, unless they affirmatively cancel the treaty (unless there's an automatic cancellation clause).

[quote]A more accurate analogy would be, you are likely to defend alliance x, even though you havn't had a treaty with that alliance for 2-3 years, because 2-3 years ago you had a treaty![/quote]

This isn't what I was saying at all. For instance, I'll use a CN example. TPF had a treaty with Pacifica long before you were the leader. Upon becoming leader, did that treaty become null and void? No, it didn't, because TPF didn't cancel it (well, they did, but I won't go there... ...yet.)

[quote]The fact you state dropping a treaty is possible once leadership decides to change further supports my point, arguing that one can't escape the past is like stating a new regime has no authority to cancel a treaty or a past, it must simply continue with what it was given.[/quote]

This is precisely my point. Slayer didn't have an individual treaty with NPO, TPF as an ALLIANCE did. That didn't go away just because he was no longer the leader. It's the alliance that retains the treaties (in most cases) not an individual leader. And my point was cancellations wouldn't be necessary if this wasn't the case. Since cancellations ARE necessary at times, it's further support of my point: to wit, TPF held the treaty, not Slayer.

[quote]If we ran an experiment with leader A and got result 1 several times, then changed to leader B and got result 2 several times, but never result 1. If I made you bet on what would happen with the next sequence of the experiment with leader B, what would you guess the result would be?[/quote]

What this has to do with my post is beyond me, however, I will grant that a change of leadership may well change how the alliance behaves dramatically (otherwise, why change leaders at all?).

[quote]However I know you are stating the behavioral norms of CN. The rules here are made independent of logic or reason.[/quote]

I'll put it into more concise terms: TPF signs contract with NPO (let's assume Slayer signed on behalf of the alliance). Slayer leaves. Is there still a contract between TPF and NPO as alliances? My assertion is yes, there still is. And you're right, this is my experience of the norm in CN.

As to the question posed as to which TPF would I rather have a treaty with (assuming 'neither' wasn't a cognizable response), anyone who knows me will know the answer to that one. And of course TPF could well be different today (as I said in my previous post; not the one you quoted mhawk - it was back a few pages). But my assertion still stands: you fly the name, you take the shame. There are benefits to flying a particular name; treaties, history, boards, charter, etc. There is also a downside. Good with the bad and all - and by the way, that's no slam at you, mhawk, I certainly respected what you did in Karma.

[Emperor Brutus]

Poison Clan. But you left them out...

[Fort Pitt]

It's either MK or NoR, I voted NoR just because I figured MK already had the majority of the votes, which they do.

[Trikoupis]

LSF never broke a single treaty in our long and tumultuous history. Although i understand that we are currently not big enough to be in such a list.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1284185967' post='2449608']
Once again I laugh at several people calling us CoC and opportunists and saying we were shamed into going into the meat grinder in Karma.

You can go back to our DoW in Karma and several of the very same posters being critical in this thread were basically saying "Hurr Durr TPF will fight a few days and bail!!!" or "TPF is going to give the minimum effort and leave" and generally calling us cowards back then for declaring on Avalanche as if that was all we were going to be facing in that war.

Then we faced 100+ days of 1 vs 3 nuclear war, standing by our allies in Pacifica when we could have gotten out much sooner. Lost about half our members, many to deletion and about 85% of our prewar NS. But we didn't disband as many predicted, we were there til Pacifica was out and we still love Pacifica. I'd go to ZI several more times to defend them as I did in Karma. Same with any of our allies.

We are still rebuilding from Karma and the two wars since to some extent. We are at less than 50% of our pre-Karma NS. We were rebuilding when we were jumped in the war around Christmas. We took several days of beating so our allies weren't drawn into it in an unfavorable way. We fought in BiPolar to help our allies while we were rebuilding from the past two wars. Had the Sith asked us to, we'd have fought in their war too.
[/quote]

You can keep saying this all you want. I hear the "it was only propaganda" and "We still had other treaties with them" and "We totally were going to fight the whole time" lines every time this topic comes out. You're not touting them, but you're basically saying that refusing to fight at first didn't count because eventually, you came around.

The rest of the world remembers, Vol Navy. You're not fooling anyone.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1285818406' post='2469240']
You can keep saying this all you want. I hear the "it was only propaganda" and "We still had other treaties with them" and "We totally were going to fight the whole time" lines every time this topic comes out. You're not touting them, but you're basically saying that refusing to fight at first didn't count because eventually, you came around.

The rest of the world remembers, Vol Navy. You're not fooling anyone.
[/quote]


Whatever you say Pez.

My alliance seniority right now is from the day Karma started. I read the post about canceling on the OWF and went to our boards and immediately resigned from TPF over it. I was out of TPF for 12 minutes before getting several PMs that we were going to be joining and defending Pacifica and that the whole fiasco with mhawk was a misunderstanding.

We joined, we fought, we stayed til the end despite it costing us a larger percentage or our pre-war strength than any other alliance.

We'd do it again tomorrow if that's what it came to.

[wes the wise]

What about TFD, CCC, GR?

[MrMuz]

Most alliances stick to their treaties. It's only a minority that don't. Should be a poll for which ones don't.

It's a little odd that MK is so far leading this poll when they decided to cancel all treaties recently. Then again, GPA isn't doing too badly for an alliance with no treaties to honor.

[leprecon]

You could have just named this poll "which alliance has the most people who vote in polls?"

[flak attack]

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1286734443' post='2480505']
Most alliances stick to their treaties. It's only a minority that don't. Should be a poll for which ones don't.

It's a little odd that MK is so far leading this poll when they decided to cancel all treaties recently. Then again, GPA isn't doing too badly for an alliance with no treaties to honor.
[/quote]
A treaty doesn't make a friend

[MrMuz]

But the poll said "the best treaty partner"

[flak attack]

I blame inconsistency in the writers works