Azaghul Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 First of all, they've made it very clear that they want to cripple us, and there's been no guarantee that burning those nations will change the terms. Plus, two of them HAVE come out of PM, and there's been no change in their offer. You could always offer to have the nations fight for a certain period of time as an alternative to the aid terms. At least those with the warchests to recover and still send aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Oh no! We're losing a war yet we don't get to dictate the terms of our own surrender! Get over yourselves. This soapbox grandstanding isn't doing you any favours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) "Trust me, I won't hurt you" Seriously? Last I checked, the opposing side wasn't trusting NPO to do anything on good faith. I'm not sure what "offering" you're referring to. It's a generalized statement. Don't look too much into it. If you really think our plan is to lure you out of peace mode, beat on you, then order you back into it, you have the political aptitude of Tywinn. No !@#$ we don't trust your coalition. Your side has stated that we're a threat and need to be neutralized. Lol no, you haven't refuted anything There is no alliance in the world with enough Political capital to pull that one off, no matter how hard anyone tried. Doing so would cause a large backlash among our own coalition and the offending alliance would likely be destroyed instead. If you're really operating on this being a likely scenario, then it is no surprise you find yourself in this situation. That is just an awful attempt at slandering an opposing coalition based off an impossible scenario. Also, I don't operate on impersonal statements attributed to "your side". You're playing up this situation into a much more dire situation than it is actually is, and everybody knows it. Edited January 26, 2014 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 PR responses to a PR thread? say it isn't so? Always have to point out relevant factors to consider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse End Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 It's a generalized statement. Don't look too much into it. If you really think our plan is to lure you out of peace mode, beat on you, then order you back into it, you have the political aptitude of Tywinn. There is no alliance in the world with enough Political capital to pull that one off, no matter how hard anyone tried. Doing so would cause a large backlash among our own coalition and the offending alliance would likely be destroyed instead. If you're really operating on this being a likely scenario, then it is no surprise you find yourself in this situation. That is just an awful attempt at slandering an opposing coalition based off an impossible scenario. Also, I don't operate on impersonal statements attributed to "your side". You're playing up this situation into a much more dire situation than it is actually is, and everybody knows it. Oh, so even though your side has said that you want to, you couldn't actually pull it off, so we should just trust you that you wouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) It's a generalized statement. Don't look too much into it. If you really think our plan is to lure you out of peace mode, beat on you, then order you back into it, you have the political aptitude of Tywinn. There is no alliance in the world with enough Political capital to pull that one off, no matter how hard anyone tried. Doing so would cause a large backlash among our own coalition and the offending alliance would likely be destroyed instead. If you're really operating on this being a likely scenario, then it is no surprise you find yourself in this situation. That is just an awful attempt at slandering an opposing coalition based off an impossible scenario. Also, I don't operate on impersonal statements attributed to "your side". You're playing up this situation into a much more dire situation than it is actually is, and everybody knows it. I also thought that I wouldn't see people demanding terms that would result in a harsher loss of money for us than Karma. There's no grand paranoia here when I say that I wouldn't put it past the people in charge to try it, and the follower-alliances not to care. Idiocy and apathy have long gone hand-in-hand, especially from your corner of the world. Edited January 26, 2014 by Master Holton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSandman Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Oh no! We're losing a war yet we don't get to dictate the terms of our own surrender! Why is it called 'terms' it's punitive reparations. Call a 'spade a spade' and be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Oh, so even though your side has said that you want to, you couldn't actually pull it off, so we should just trust you that you wouldn't. Did you really just try and spin my statement concerning the fact that nobody could pull that off to us being weak? You are something special. Stop dealing in unattributed statements that we all know aren't from Dajobo or relevant parties. Join us in reality, where we use logical scenarios and don't quote Tywinn as official coalition policy. I also thought that I wouldn't see people demanding terms that would result in a harsher loss of money for us than Karma. There's no grand paranoia here when I say that I wouldn't put it past the people in charge to try it, and the follower-alliances not to care. Idiocy and apathy have long gone hand-in-hand, especially from your corner of the world. Please provide me one example of an event to give your scenario precedent coming from our "corner of the world"? I'll wait here. Edited January 26, 2014 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minion Rouse Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 There's no grand paranoia here when I say that I wouldn't put it past the people in charge to try it, and the follower-alliances not to care. Idiocy and apathy have long gone hand-in-hand, especially from your corner of the world. How can you expect anything less than animosity when you say things like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) How can you expect anything less than animosity when you say things like this? NPO doesnt really want peace. Edited January 26, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 There's no grand paranoia here when I say that I wouldn't put it past the people in charge to try it, and the follower-alliances not to care. Idiocy and apathy have long gone hand-in-hand, especially from your corner of the world. Why do you have any expectation that we should treat you with respect, especially after posts like this? I keep seeing this: posts that simultaneously cry about not being treated properly with tinfoil theories about our coalition structure. One or the other, brudda. Why is it called 'terms' it's punitive reparations. Call a 'spade a spade' and be honest. I am. You're free to call it what you like, as am I. Of course at the end of the day my opinion on the matter means far more than yours, but you did ask me to be honest, so here it is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Did this grandstanding really warrant a public announcement? Just seems like high-brow whining to me. I was thinking the exact thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Holton Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Why is it called 'terms' it's punitive reparations. Call a 'spade a spade' and be honest. "Preventative Reparations" would be more accurate. Punitive implies Pacifica did something out-of-the-norm or wrong. Edited January 26, 2014 by Master Holton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSandman Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Of course at the end of the day my opinion on the matter means far more than yours Your opinion matters more to you maybe. But lets keep on topic its punitive reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 This announcement from NPO makes me very happy. Please, take a month or so to make your stand against "tyranny" or whatever...longer if you wish. I have something extra special planned. :)not only is this an especially transparent statement given your current war situation, but it also shows that you haven't learned from your last major war that reps are foolish, and political sabotage. When is the last time anyone enforced reps of any kind and looked good by doing it? It's not in my nature to side with NPO on anything, but white peace should be the standard if an alliance is smart politically. As to your big surprise, bring it on. It's no surprise to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Your opinion matters more to you maybe. But lets keep on topic its punitive reparations. No, they aren't. They aren't reparations, as reps would imply some sort of material gain on our behalf-i.e. you pay me x million. That isn't happening here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Your opinion matters more to you maybe. But lets keep on topic its punitive reparations. And the newest NPO talking point is born. Edited January 26, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 No, they aren't. They aren't reparations, as reps would imply some sort of material gain on our behalf-i.e. you pay me x million. That isn't happening here. But it was bolded, and underlined! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSandman Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 No, they aren't. They aren't reparations, as reps would imply some sort of material gain on our behalf-i.e. you pay me x million. That isn't happening here. No you are wrong. punative means : inflicting or intended as punishment. reparations means : the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged. The 'assistance' is that your coalition will gain from NPOs top players being removed from all post-war economic activity via aid-restrictions. This benefits your coalitions. And its punative because you are using it as a punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 No you are wrong. punative means : inflicting or intended as punishment. reparations means : the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged. The 'assistance' is that your coalition will gain from NPOs top players being removed from all post-war economic activity via aid-restrictions. This benefits your coalitions. And its punative because you are using it as a punishment. Ooooooh, the Webster's Dictionary argument. So effective! You're obviously new here, or inexperienced at most. The terms offered to NPO are in response to their tactical decisions made over the course of the war. Any potential benefit to us is purely coincidental and unintended. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Not whinning .... just letting the world know what Pacificas stance is from Pacificas mouths not from them whom twist and shout what they think they hear Sorry if I can't be bothered to shed even crocodile tears for Pacifica. I'll rephrase: sorry that I'm not sorry. Perhaps if Pacifica hadn't shot themselves in the foot politically they wouldn't find themselves in this predicament. You sleep in the bed you make. Do I think they should accept the terms being given to them? Fuck no and I'm glad they are giving TOP et. al. the proverbial middle finger. Despite my sympathy for them (and that's really only because RnR/GOD pulled the short stick this war), this announcement is tantamount to little more than whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 No you are wrong. punative means : inflicting or intended as punishment. reparations means : the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged. The 'assistance' is that your coalition will gain from NPOs top players being removed from all post-war economic activity via aid-restrictions. This benefits your coalitions. And its punative because you are using it as a punishment. Are you implying that Pacifica intends to come after us post-war? Well, hey, don't go justifying what you're arguing against, young buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolay Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 We have made it clear to all our allies that we consider all obligations and bonds of friendship between us to be satisfied with the current level of fighting and suffering they have gone through, and we will not force or ask them to continue fighting if they are able to get a way out. The New Pacific Order is fully prepared to fight for our post-war economic freedom alone, even if that will mean getting further dogpiled. To date, our allies have been horrified by the harshness of punishment that the aggressors seek to inflict on the Order, and have refused to leave - but we welcome them to seek a settlement at any time. On behalf of the ODN Senate and General Assembly, I'd like to say that the ODN values its honor and prides itself on its steadfast loyalty to friends and allies. To abandon allies on the battlefield is both dishonorable and disloyal so we'll be having none of that, thank you very much. Either way, if our positions were reversed, would NPO have abandoned us, or any of their other allies, to the mercy of the enemy? So, what you ask is ridiculous. Sure, our coalition has lost the war, but none of us have stooped to the level of the Polarlition(some of the more prominent examples would be IRON's backstabbing, LoSS inventing fake treaties, and Valhalla's pathetic "no-nuking" deal). Let's not change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Valhalla's pathetic "no-nuking" deal You mean the one that NPO agreed to, and also held up their end of? I'm not saying it wasn't a reprehensible thing to do (I think it was pretty scummy tbh) but you're acting like Val just decided "we aren't going to nuke NPO because we feel like it!" and as though there wasn't a similar policy in place coming from Pacifica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 reparations means : the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged. The 'assistance' is that your coalition will gain from NPOs top players being removed from all post-war economic activity via aid-restrictions. This benefits your coalitions. And its punative because you are using it as a punishment. This is some pretty amazing spin even for CN. 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.