MikeTheFirst Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1297098164' post='2624137'] Mike, as I have explained in my earlier post, since MK is the aggressor in this case (by attacking TPF in the first place) there is no way for them to be considered on the "defending side". Thus how can a defensive clause be activated when MK are, by their own admission like I said, the attackers ? Edit: and how does a matter between NEW and iFOK suddenly prove that all NPO members, and by extension myself, are hypocrites, I seem to have missed your trail of thought there [/quote] I understand your point, but all of the NPO, NSO and TPF members who replied to the NEW-DF case, said that that's just e-lawyering and that an alliance should always defend their MDP partner, even if they started an aggressive war. It makes you hypocrites because I see all the same people in this thread again, 1 month later, making the exact opposite point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1297098399' post='2624145'] Another "no u" response in conjunction with the standard hypocrisy accusation. How predictable. [/quote] In some circumstances, those sort of accusations sorta make themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Heinrich Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Left it kinda late there guys, anyways no matter, good luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297098571' post='2624149'] I don't think that anyone with half brain would expect to see TOP fighting at Polaris side, but if I got it right, people complaining here didn't expect TOP to declare war in the same alliances who helped them last war, this just shows that you don't care so much about those who supported and were defeated with you in the last war. You turned your backs to them in your lust for power/Stockholm syndrome. At least you confessed that TOP changed their FA direction and became a DH's puppet. [/quote] Yes, we changed our FA direction. Believe it or not, we do attempt to be a successful alliance and our foreign affairs team plays a large part in that. It's almost like we are playing a political simulator... Make no mistake though, it's not as if we use the Polaris method and sign a treaty with every alliance out there that is willing. Our treaties are based on friendship and common goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janosik Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1297098008' post='2624130'] I'm glad we agree then to the fact that TOP has no CB whatsoever and no legitimate claims of "defending our allies" as other members have been trying to claim in this very thread. [/quote] What's with the assuming and misinterpreting going on around here? Basic reading comprehension... In fact feel free to read whatever you're actually quoting from now on before blabbering about it. Here if you really want to continue, I like apples. Now tell me how that fits in with some malicious evil agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='MikeTheFirst' timestamp='1297098807' post='2624155'] I understand your point, but all of the NPO, NSO and TPF members who replied to the NEW-DF case, said that that's just e-lawyering and that an alliance should always defend their MDP partner, even if they started an aggressive war. It makes you hypocrites because I see all the same people in this thread again, 1 month later, making the exact opposite point. [/quote] Fine then, how would you apply this logic that "an alliance should always defend their MDP partner" to the fact that ML as well is now under attack by MK/Umbrella ? For you not to be a hypocrite does it mean that you need to argue that Duckroll should defend their ally now ? Edit: and if you don't agree to that, but argue the opposite, doesn't that mean that TOP has no reason of interfering in this aggressive conflict started by their allies, MK ? It seems a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation, isn't it? No matter what, you end up a hypocrite Edited February 7, 2011 by Weirdgus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 As a "Friend of the Order" and the oldest living person of the original Paradox settlement on this world, I say-- bad TOP, bad. Anyway have fun, etc., war rawr etc., etc., etc. whatever at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1297098546' post='2624147'] As for us joining an NPO/NpO coalition... If our goals are successful there will never be an NpO coalition to join. [/quote] If you have plans to disband Polaris you must realize that you're fighting in the wrong war. [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1297099155' post='2624161'] Yes, we changed our FA direction. Believe it or not, we do attempt to be a successful alliance and our foreign affairs team plays a large part in that. It's almost like we are playing a political simulator... Make no mistake though, it's not as if we use the Polaris method and sign a treaty with every alliance out there that is willing. Our treaties are based on friendship and common goals. [/quote] Sorry but change the FA direction to treaty those who are in power doesn't show how successful you are, just that you are sycophants and want to suck the power !@#$. Anyway I understand your position, the only time that TOP tried to lead their own way they failed and were defeated so nothing more logical to back to the puppet behavior, first it was NPO now it's MK. Edited February 7, 2011 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timberland Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1297097160' post='2624102'] How come TOP did not attack ML ? [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98200"]MK & Umb are officially recognizing the state of war that currently exists between ourselves and Molon Labe.[/url] that's WHY, to attack ML they will in fact be attacking DUCKROLL seems big bad top don't want to fight [/quote] OH NOES WE DIDN'T ATTACK AN ALLY OF AN ALLY, WE'RE SO HORRIBLE. We are considerate of our treaty partners and their allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Jocko Homo' timestamp='1297098356' post='2624144'] Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. [/quote] [color="#0000FF"]Oh please, I'm not some mindless idiot who you can use scare tactics on. I fought the NPO long before your buddies over in TOP and Sparta realized they had to jump ship. That NPO is gone, and it wouldn't come back even if it did regain power. This is a political move on the part of MK. Nothing more, and nothing left. Trying to give it moral justification I find to be ill-fitting for an alliance that so detests "morality."[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297099651' post='2624171'] Sorry but change the FA direction to treaty those who are in power doesn't show how successful you are, just that you are sycophants and want to suck the power !@#$. Anyway I understand your position, the only time that TOP tried to lead their own way they failed and were defeated so nothing more logical to back to the puppet behavior, first it was NPO now it's MK. [/quote] You must be forgetting the time we successfully lead a coalition that stomped you. And yea, we really worked hard to treaty every alliance in power. I mean, we really have nothing in common with MK. Was a pure power move that is not based in friendship at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1297099305' post='2624165'] Fine then, how would you apply this logic that "an alliance should always defend their MDP partner" to the fact that ML as well is now under attack by MK/Umbrella ? For you not to be a hypocrite does it mean that you need to argue that Duckroll should defend their ally now ? Edit: and if you don't agree to that, but argue the opposite, doesn't that mean that TOP has no reason of interfering in this aggressive conflict started by their allies, MK ? It seems a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of situation, isn't it? No matter what, you end up a hypocrite [/quote] No, I don't really care about the e-lawyering. An alliance can do whatever it wants, imo. If it wants to defend aggressive action, fine. If it doesn't, fine by me too. What bothers me, is that alliances like NPO, NSO and TPF are using arguments that they were attacking just a month ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297098571' post='2624149'] You realize that TOP and NPO were BFF when that used to happen right? [/quote] It was never TOP who pushed for such terms, but we did support it passively by allegiance. That is correct. And also correct for about 90% of all other alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Timeline' timestamp='1297098321' post='2624142'] see this just proves how top's side like to twists issues and wording [b]Part 1:[/b] WHEN HAS ML HAD A TREATY WITH TOP? that's it because IRON has a pact with ML, this means attacking ML is in fact attacking IRON? going by this logic does it not mean all Duckroll are at war with MK and Umb ? [b]Part 2:[/b] but go ahead call me names, you know the simple truth is with DUCKROLL, ML going to war means all duckroll has gone to war (well apart from the fact Valhalla has issues of upholding treaties) [/quote]Part 1: Duckroll can't be considered a single entity Part 2: meow meow ur all morans, Duckroll is obviosly a single entity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297099651' post='2624171'] If you have plans to disband Polaris you must realize that you're fighting in the wrong war. Sorry but change the FA direction to treaty those who are in power doesn't show how successful you are, just that you are sycophants and want to suck the power !@#$. Anyway I understand your position, the only time that TOP tried to lead their own way they failed and were defeated so nothing more logical to back to the puppet behavior, first it was NPO now it's MK. [/quote] LMAO! I don't even know what to say...Polaris preaching on how to do FA. Realize we base treaties on friendships, and stand by those friends. MK kinda does the same, and has similar FA goals. Maybe aligning with people who have a history of standing by their friends is a bad thing in your eyes, but...well, we could make a book off you on how NOT to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1297099305' post='2624165'] Fine then, how would you apply this logic that "an alliance should always defend their MDP partner" to the fact that ML as well is now under attack by MK/Umbrella ? For you not to be a hypocrite does it mean that you need to argue that Duckroll should defend their ally now ? [/quote] (Psst, it was ML who attacked us first) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='MikeTheFirst' timestamp='1297100052' post='2624177'] No, I don't really care about the e-lawyering. An alliance can do whatever it wants. [/quote] An alliance can do whatever it wants as long as they are not NPO, NSO or TPF, in your view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Lord Gobb' timestamp='1297100202' post='2624183'] (Psst, it was ML who attacked us first) [/quote] Actually, it was MK who attacked TPF members, without a formal DoW first. ML was the one who decided to respect their defensive clause with TPF and come defend their ally. So again it was MK who effectively attacked ML. Thank you, come again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1297099986' post='2624176'] You must be forgetting the time we successfully lead a coalition that stomped you. And yea, we really worked hard to treaty every alliance in power. I mean, we really have nothing in common with MK. Was a pure power move that is not based in friendship at all. [/quote] How cute, you seems to forget that NPO enabled you to do that. I like how you try to dismiss the truth making fun of it. [quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1297100109' post='2624180'] LMAO! I don't even know what to say...Polaris preaching on how to do FA. Realize we base treaties on friendships, and stand by those friends. MK kinda does the same, and has similar FA goals. Maybe aligning with people who have a history of standing by their friends is a bad thing in your eyes, but...well, we could make a book off you on how NOT to do it. [/quote] Yeah TOP base treaties on friendships, it's just a coincidence your friends changes every war and coincidently this changes is in direction on those who currently have power. I love coincidences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeTheFirst Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Weirdgus' timestamp='1297100251' post='2624184'] An alliance can do whatever it wants as long as they are not NPO, NSO or TPF, in your view? [/quote] No, you can do whatever you want, too...I really don't care. Certain actions can have consequences, but that's part of [OOC]the game[/OOC]. It's just weird when you're attacking a certain viewpoint one month and defend it in the next, while calling others hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297100579' post='2624189'] Yeah TOP base treaties on friendships, it's just a coincidence your friends changes every war and coincidently this changes is in direction on those who currently have power. I love coincidences. [/quote] Yea, like that time we followed Citadel and FOK toward CnG when we hated that bloc. Oh wait, that actually never happened... If we are really only out to seek power wouldn't it have been much easier to just join MK before the whole BiPolar war? I mean we didn't like them back then and didn't have much communication with them, but it would have kept us in power. For some reason we only ended up allying MK after we blew the !@#$ out of each other for a few months and really got to know each other. It's to be expected though. TOP has a long history of allying alliances for power after fighting them. We did end up making the HUGE power move of allying OMFG after fighting them during Karma. It has nothing to do with the fact that war is a great chance to get to know the alliances you are at war with. Edited February 7, 2011 by Vladimir Stukov II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROMMELHSQ Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297100579' post='2624189'] How cute, you seems to forget that NPO enabled you to do that. [/quote] no no, NPO just delayed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1297101015' post='2624194'] Yea, like that time we followed Citadel and FOK toward CnG when we hated that bloc. Oh wait, that actually never happened... If we are really only out to seek power wouldn't it have been much easier to just join MK before the whole BiPolar war? I mean we didn't like them back then and didn't have much communication with them, but it would have kept us in power. For some reason we only ended up allying MK after we blew the !@#$ out of each other for a few months and really got to know each other. [/quote] Don't mind him, he's just upset they don't have a back door they can throw a few alliances under the bus to save themselves from the beatdown they have earned over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Balkan Banania' timestamp='1297075964' post='2623893'] Apart from that I fail to see why you still try to play the victim in the Karma war, hell there is a post in your embassy stating that we threw you under the bus in the Karma war [/quote] It's not our fault that your government chooses to keep its membership very uninformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297098571' post='2624149'] You realize that TOP and NPO were BFF when that used to happen right? [/quote] Yeah. So was FAN, GOONS, Gen[M]ay (Umbrella), and a ton of other alliances that are on the opposite side of NPO et al. @#$% changes. Alliances change, treaties changes, friends change, allegiances change. Get over it. 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.