Neo Uruk Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Oh, I didn't post here apparently. All the snarky shit is probably taken.I'll just say I like RIA's performance and good fight all around (even though I had zero involvement in this front) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helios Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 Congrats to the coalition on the elimination of another combatant, and congrats to RIA on achieving peace and a NAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Good luck to all moving forward into a new era of peace. I personally wouldn't use the term "era" to describe 6 months but to each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 It is good to the see the Baldr war finally come to its conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I do not surrender to DBDC. I do not agree to any peace terms with DBDC. And I damn sure don't agree to any non-aggression pact with DBDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 It is good to the see the Baldr war finally come to its conclusion. You've seen how we fight. You've seen our willingness to fight. You've seen our bile. And this is how you want to proceed with us? The NAP isn't to protect the RIA from DBDC, it's the other way around. It's the only reason we accepted this document(Sarkin can verify this). Your statement is that of one who wishes to further antagonize us. You have allies. I know you're capable of legitimate diplomacy. Instead of trying to ensure round 3 happens in August, why not [ooc]play this game as it was meant to be played, and take the far more interesting route of making us not want to fight you[/ooc]? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian trojans Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I do not surrender to DBDC. I do not agree to any peace terms with DBDC. And I damn sure don't agree to any non-aggression pact with DBDC.  I salute you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkin Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 [...] The NAP isn't to protect the RIA from DBDC, it's the other way around. It's the only reason we accepted this document (Sarkin can verify this). Â You should probably ask Shadow for logs of the peace negotiations, because that's certainly not how I interpreted the purpose of the NAP at the time. This post is sort of inviting me to post the relevant section of the discussion, but I'll refrain from doing so unless that's what you're indeed asking me to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 That won't be necessary. I am of course referring to the logs, but I also have the added perspective of internal discussion. I will say that we were definitely not clamoring for peace with DBDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkin Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 That won't be necessary. I am of course referring to the logs, but I also have the added perspective of internal discussion. I will say that we were definitely not clamoring for peace with DBDC. Â Very strange, given those logs. Perhaps Shadow was simply being circumspect about the NAP's true purpose and I didn't pick up on it. Ah well, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 It was probably that. :P You know how diplomacy is. I don't think he was intentionally trying to mask the RIA's intentions, he probably just didn't want to say anything more than what needed to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porksaber Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 I'd like to know what RIA's planned recourse is should the NAP be broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 You've seen how we fight. You've seen our willingness to fight. You've seen our bile. And this is how you want to proceed with us? The NAP isn't to protect the RIA from DBDC, it's the other way around. It's the only reason we accepted this document(Sarkin can verify this). Your statement is that of one who wishes to further antagonize us. You have allies. I know you're capable of legitimate diplomacy. Instead of trying to ensure round 3 happens in August, why not [ooc]play this game as it was meant to be played, and take the far more interesting route of making us not want to fight you[/ooc]? So much bravery and hostility in one post. I have no idea how you took my post as being negative, but at this point I don't care. Your alliance agreed to peace and we have peace. If you want to war DBDC then declare a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 That won't be necessary. I am of course referring to the logs, but I also have the added perspective of internal discussion. I will say that we were definitely not clamoring for peace with DBDC. Â And yet you have it, which tends to undermine what you're saying. Â It's a bit like buying a white car and saying you didn't want a white car and then expecting people to believe you. So why did you get it? Was it on sale? Was there nothing better available? Were you browbeaten by the missus? Â Oh I'm sorry, all of this is covered in secret discussions which you can't divulge. Â Rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Good. Glad to see peace reached. Impressive fighting, RIA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Oh I'm sorry, all of this is covered in secret discussions which you can't divulge. Rubbish.Double-dog dare you to post screenshots of every post in the members/gov-only area of NoR forums Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Double-dog dare you to post screenshots of every post in the members/gov-only area of NoR forums He's making a good point Rey. Disingenuous to try and construct a public narrative that relies on internal discussion none of us are going to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 He's making a good point Rey. Disingenuous to try and construct a public narrative that relies on internal discussion none of us are going to see.You mean... what 90% of alliances do, especially regarding wars and treaties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldConqueror Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 You mean... what 90% of alliances do, especially regarding wars and treaties? Those that do have their justifications picked apart too if what they do is demonstrably at odds with what they're saying. Though I can't think of an instance where an alliance said 'we didn't want to treaty x' after having just treatied x. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 I'd like to know what RIA's planned recourse is should the NAP be broken. If DBDC violates the NAP, we would probably open with the standard, go through channels to resolve the "tech raid" or whatever they call their aggression against us. Â I would expect our demands to be harsh, but not unreasonable to the damage caused. Â If DBDC refuses to negotiate a settlement, then we would defend ourselves, presumably, both on the battlefield, and with a lot of finger-wagging here on the forums. From our end, RIA are people of their word, and we would not initiate a violation of the agreement. I'm not an official spokesperson, but I would consider these words to be accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Great Lord Moth Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 We were browbeaten by the missus. I like that explanation. :o  So much bravery and hostility in one post. I have no idea how you took my post as being negative, but at this point I don't care. Your alliance agreed to peace and we have peace. If you want to war DBDC then declare a war.  You have already started a war elsewhere, and I realized it the instant I saw your post. Maybe we should've added a clause where you, in particular, agree to stop vandalizing the Baldr War page of the wiki. Your edits are both disingenuous and clumsy. >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 We were browbeaten by the missus. I like that explanation. :o   You have already started a war elsewhere, and I realized it the instant I saw your post. Maybe we should've added a clause where you, in particular, agree to stop vandalizing the Baldr War page of the wiki. Your edits are both disingenuous and clumsy. >_> That is hilarious. At least I have the courage the edit the wiki without being anonymous. Let's make sure we have our facts straight, though. Tell me where I am wrong:  1) RIA was raided by DBDC 2) RIA claimed it was a war and started a wiki page 3) It became a stalemate when nobody could declare any additional wars due to mechanic issues 4) When a DS member joined our AA months later you guys attacked him during a global war citing a continuation of the Baldr War 5) RIA surrenders to DBDC along with other alliances  There were no formal DoW's between our alliances for this current war so I merely updated the wiki to reflect your surrender. I see it has been edited a half dozen times now since I correctly inserted the facts, but if that is how you need it worded to sleep better at night then I am fine with its current version of history. At the end of the day, we have the OP of this thread to tell us all how it ended... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 A growing part of me wonders why DBDC ever offers peace to anyone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arentak Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 A growing part of me wonders why DBDC ever offers peace to anyone... To keep your tech sellers safe? Â LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 We were browbeaten by the missus. I like that explanation. :o  I thought you'd like that one. :) 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.