Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 It is amusing to see someone from GOONS posting. Better would be, if you remained in your mouse hole for the remainder of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 It is amusing to see someone from GOONS posting. Better would be, if you remained in your mouse hole for the remainder of the war. Do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Do something about it. I fail to see why. I actually prefer you doing what you are. Do it more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I fail to see why. I actually prefer you doing what you are. Do it more. Exceptionally vague and meaningless. I guess Rush is actually teaching you something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamorak Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Also hint: I needed only the terms on NPO to perpetuate my grudge with Polar. I have no grudge whatsoever with the rest of XX. Best logic ever. "I am totally for imposing terms, but I don't like those imposing terms for imposing terms" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Exceptionally vague and meaningless. I guess Rush is actually teaching you something. Actually, I am being quite clear. In my first post I said what would be best for your alliance in this situation, in my second post I clarified that it would not be my personal preference. Unfortunately, now I wait until someone muzzles you before you bite off more then you can chew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Actually, I am being quite clear. In my first post I said what would be best for your alliance in this situation, in my second post I clarified that it would not be my personal preference. Unfortunately, now I wait until someone muzzles you before you bite off more then you can chew. Ah yeah you're right. I should shut up and not express my own opinion because some tool might attribute it to GOONS official policy. Sardonic really should do a better job at preventing his members from expressing their own opinions because people might not like those opinions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ah yeah you're right. I should shut up and not express my own opinion because some tool might attribute it to GOONS official policy. Sardonic really should do a better job at preventing his members from expressing their own opinions because people might not like those opinions! You know how this 'game' works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 You know how this 'game' works. Ah, nostalgia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Where does it stop IS a fair question. It is just one that happens to have no singular answer. In this case, all of this was less than 11 months ago. In terms of history for planet Bob, it was practically yesterday. A simple "We can talk peace after you bring yy number of nations above 80K out of PM could have satisfied the retribution for last wars nonsense for this particular group of combatants. Regardless , the NOTHING peace is disgusting and it has been shown time and time again that it ALWAYS bites the peace-giver in the ass , while at the same time proving that !@#$% peace-giver "got away with one." Giving terms is quite simply getting even. More people are more interested in warm and fuzzies, its why the political climate on Planet Bob is so Admin-Awful. Everyone wants to act like genuine dislike, grudges, vengeance are things to shy away from , I simply do no subscribe that philosophy. Quite frankly, giving terms to Aftermath would achieve nothing that hasn't been achieved on the battlefield already.I don't desire to piss on their war effort, but most Aftermath members have taken a thorough beating during this war without landing back many blows (apart for a few noticeable exceptions of course).If you want a more pragmatic approach, the political cost for giving Aftermath terms would be much higher than the value of a few toptier nations (and before people spin my words, no: I don't support terms for anyone in this war, nor does R&R). Edited January 10, 2015 by Garion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Hail peace! Happy to see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Ah, nostalgia. Nostalgia? Sure. More on to topic; good war, good peace. Best to all ex combatants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamorak Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Hail peace! Happy to see this. Huzzah, only a few month until DBDC can raid those upper tier nations again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Nostalgia? Sure. It's been a while since I've seen an NPO member tell someone else what they should or should not be posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihail the Just Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Punishing Aftermath via peace terms after a sound victory achieved in war would be misguided considering all. Wait - I thought this was White Peace, now you're claiming Victory? Whatevs - hope you all had a grand time on the battlefield anyways... Edited January 10, 2015 by Mihail the Just Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I have no moral objection to terms being demanded or enforce. Its up to the alliance to determine whether the hinderence/gain is worth the potential political fallout.Choosing not to give terms, was a calculated. It puts NPO in a position to capitalize on the good will they've shown if they so choose. For a forward thinking alliance, I expected nothing different.Congratz on the peace. Good luck on the rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 It's been a while since I've seen an NPO member tell someone else what they should or should not be posting. It's been a while since I saw someone being so combatant towards a good advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Tyrant Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 The fact is, no matter how you break it down.... terms were offered to Umb. Terms were accepted by Umb. Everyone in EQ soiled their undies at the thought of having to enforce those terms, so Brehon eventually force fed a "no terms because these guys are too scared to enforce them" then you had mass elements of EQ blame Brehon for their own lack of testicular fortitude in enforcing the terms they wanted. As a person who was involved at a government level in an ally of NPO at the time, I can state that this is almost a completely flawed analysis of the events which transpired NPO wanted to impose terms and went through with it without really consulting anyone else, when brehon was informed that most of us simply didn't have much upper tier nations left to throw at the opposing coalition and actually be able enforce the terms that he wanted, he quickly dropped the terms again with little or no consultation. It really was a case of now you see me, now you don't. The failure was almost completely NPO's and they paid the price for it during disorder. Like what some have mentioned recently, it's all cyclical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 It's been a while since I saw someone being so combatant towards a good advice. I'll keep the advice with a vague hint of threat behind it from a noted quality poster such as yourself in mind going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty of the Herm Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Wait - I thought this was White Peace, now you're claiming Victory? Whatevs - hope you all had a grand time on the battlefield anyways... I'm pretty sure he was referring to what occured on the battlefield. The way peace is settled doesn't determine the victor. Also technically it's not a completely white peace since there is the single term that the Super Cereal Coalition cannot aid or rejoin the conflict in any way, shape or form. That simple term is enforcible, and the same term is not imposed on the other coalition either showing which side won in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Best logic ever. "I am totally for imposing terms, but I don't like those imposing terms for imposing terms" Perhaps you do not understand that you reap what you sow. Seems to be a common problem in Polaris. Which is hilarious for an alliance sporting so damn many pseudo-moralists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 As a person who was involved at a government level in an ally of NPO at the time, I can state that this is almost a completely flawed analysis of the events which transpired NPO wanted to impose terms and went through with it without really consulting anyone else, when brehon was informed that most of us simply didn't have much upper tier nations left to throw at the opposing coalition and actually be able enforce the terms that he wanted, he quickly dropped the terms again with little or no consultation. It really was a case of now you see me, now you don't. The failure was almost completely NPO's and they paid the price for it during disorder. Like what some have mentioned recently, it's all cyclical. Its cute that you act like I was not an ally of his at the time and did not talk to him EVERY single day about terms. Its cute that you think you need to educate me. I have logs from Sparta gov... AI gov(who all are strangely enough in Valhalla) lambasting Brehon because the terms were not harsh enough. Hence my incredulous disconnect with understanding how one group was like "Oh no Brehon is imposing terms!" and an entirely different group is mad because "Brehon is letting them off far too easy just to appease C&G".. both narratives played, and they both cannot be true... and only a fool is unable to wade through what really happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Quite frankly, giving terms to Aftermath would achieve nothing that hasn't been achieved on the battlefield already. I don't desire to piss on their war effort, but most Aftermath members have taken a thorough beating during this war without landing back many blows (apart for a few noticeable exceptions of course). If you want a more pragmatic approach, the political cost for giving Aftermath terms would be much higher than the value of a few toptier nations (and before people spin my words, no: I don't support terms for anyone in this war, nor does R&R). The hilarious thing is that you all think I am promoting terms to aftermath. I am simply promoting what SHOULD have been promoted.. come out of Peace Mode, then we will talk closing down the front. It is literally something that they could not possibly object to after imposing terms for peace mode use (of , and I cannot stress this enough) literally 17 nations out of 393 in the last war. And let us not kid ourselves... not one person cared about the other 20-30 in the 20-60K range that were in PM, anyone who claims to care is a liar at worst and disingenuous at best. Come out of Peace Mode, then we talk. Nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longshadow Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) I feel like I understand Rush's point but at the same time for myself, and I think for my Alliance at least, this was us merely stepping in to help our ally. We didn't really care about the main objectives of the war and thus imposing even the idea of "We won't talk peace till you come out of peace mode" is simply something we felt was just an "Eh" move. No reason for us to do it as far as I could tell. e: I did the thing. Edited January 10, 2015 by Longshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mihail the Just Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'm pretty sure he was referring to what occured on the battlefield. The way peace is settled doesn't determine the victor. Also technically it's not a completely white peace since there is the single term that the Super Cereal Coalition cannot aid or rejoin the conflict in any way, shape or form. That simple term is enforcible, and the same term is not imposed on the other coalition either showing which side won in the end. You don't say. (Am I really guilty of such subtlety?) 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.