Yevgeni Luchenkov

I don't consider you part of the victorious party either.

It seems most of you don't realize that people lose less and less tech and infra as they go down.

Poor Brehon, I'm afraid that won't happen in your lifetime unless we all go silence radio at once.

"Great" rivalries, people. Not just "hey, we don't like the other group of terrible people and they don't like our terrible alliance either".

I think it's safe to say that the biggest reason why your side would compliment them on their fighting and shower them with praise for surrendering is because you want to provoke a cascade effect, not because they were or were not a threat or a malicious opponent. Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, I'm just echo'ing the comments made by others, especially the warning given by Craig.

NoV/NoR Vs the government of Norway

The longest and most storied one is probably TOP-NpO.

If you still congratulate them on their fighting prowess in three to four months from now, it will be something. For now, saluting those who surrendered is polite, yet often done with ulterior motives, especially by the victors.

Our worst losses are a year of tech (6k). We'll live. They're heavy, though, it was by no means easy fighting. We fought good nations all the way. I think he's more refering to people who lost 10-12k tech.

Hereno, good friend, you're not reading this properly. Most leaders, on our side of the fence, are congratulating UCON (UCoN?) on a fight well fought as well. They went in, gave all they could. TBRaiders perfectly sums up what most of us think. However, a few disagree. Let's not take the opinions of a few and make a "your coalition" statement. That would lead to really bad threads (and this place is already a cesspool of idiocy).

Onwards to another 10 billion more!

We are pleased to accept Pacifica's surrender.

Honestly, you're quickly moving up the shit posting ladder. You're not HoT or Mogar yet but you're definitely aiming for the stars. You'd do your alliance an immense service by not posting.

You're delirious. Your leadership ought to bring you back into your cage.

No. What I wrote isn't that being off your AA is an act of cowardice. You might want to go back and read again. What I wrote is this: 1)If you declare a war while being off your regular AA but your government insists you are still a full member, then they should either acknowledge the alliance they are at war with (so, if I leave my AA to attack a member of, say, TTK, I'm saying TOP should acknowledge its state of war with TTK) OR they should label me as rogue. What I then said is that this new double standard where an alliance doesn't recognize (or announce) its wars is one that reeks of cowardice. People using fake AAs, in themselves, aren't cowards. It's a valid war tactic to escape staggers, one that has proven to be effective to some extent. The cowardice is at the government level for not assuming wars, not at the individual level for declaring them. Notice the difference? The difference is that, for example, MK recognizes itself at war with GLoF. I have no problem if they (MK) send members to the "lol.AA" and "dbdc" and "allarchon" AAs and DoW on GLoF: MK recognize them as full members AND recognize war with GLoF. What I have a problem with is HoT DoW'ing on EvU from his AA, his AA insisting he's still a member but acting like that war never happened and they're not at war with EvU. Now, Doch pointed out a good example. We indeed have a member of TOP who did that very thing by attacking a member of IRON. I wish that he didn't do it and now I wish that we would assume that war but I'm afraid I am not a member of TOP's executive government. I'm against it for the bad precedent it sets. I'm against it because it will definitely be abused in the future. I'm against it because it was a good tradition to have alliances acknowledge and declare their wars publicly.

I think the former isn't a stretch of the imagination. There is mistrust in your coalition. You will not publicly admit it, however. I wouldn't argue to make you admit it, it is a pointless endeavour. The second is probably too heavy a word. We are not hammering the enemy as we do not have any offensive capability. On the other hand, we are dishing enough damage for them to wish a new alliance by their side. I do not represent my own government at this point but you have my blessing to correct people on that misconception.

Amen. To be honest, the non-declarations of war have blurred lines. On both ends you have people declaring wars off AAs, alliances not assuming the wars they are declaring in-game yet demanding their members be considered as full members and not rogues, etc. It's nonsensical. Either form new alliances for the sake of warfare, alliances that should be fully recognized and taken to task or assume your war declarations. This new trend of affairs reeks of cowardice.

Actually, you might want to check out my initial posts. They are mostly timetables of events, where I said: "TORN requested help" so "your coalition must need help" and "Brehon said he didn't want his coalition allies alone at the peace table" so "the NPO wants a seat at the peace table". We then got progressively attacked by people on your side of the aisle who didn't want to admit that they either needed help OR that they had made a mistake by not bringing an AI representant to the peace talks. It culminated in chefjoe's delirious rants, painting us as mind controllers.

So we're twisting: "Hey, we want to make sure our allies aren't alone in negotiations" with "we want a seat at the peace table". Gotcha, terrible twist to take the next logical step. In the same vein, next time I tell you I'm coming to your house because I don't want you to dine alone, I hope you will not twist that into "he's coming to eat with us", that'd be very evil of you. We're also twisting: "Hey Pacifica, we need help to cover their lower to middle tier" into "hey, Pacifica, we need help to cover their lower to middle tier". Again, how dare we. I know logs from your own coalition paint an inconvenient truth but it's not a reason to argue against them. NPO DoWed because: 1)You didn't bother to invite AI to the peace table and they want to make sure that doesn't happen again; 2)You needed help to cover us AKA some of your allies are tired of being used as punching bags for our nations. -------- What you are hoping to achieve is a surrender from us. That won't happen.

Sincerely, either the guy is a rogue or you recognize a state of war with said alliance. This vague "no declaration" idiocy is an extremly bad precedent, no matter which side you're on.

[b][size=18][16:00] <&Brehon[NPO]> Giving you a heads up on two things: [16:00] <&Brehon[NPO]> We are putting an official DoW up against TOP today. [16:01] <&Brehon[NPO]> Clerical clean up and to be sure, quite frankly those fighting on your front aren't alone when it comes to negotiations [16:02] <&Brehon[NPO]> Interesting set of logs I read about the peace talks[/size][/b] I'm not sure how clearer it can get. They clearly spell: [i]"hey, we DoWed partly because we want to be sure we have a seat at the peace table so those fighting on your front aren't alone when it comes to negotiations".[/i] I don't know how we can twist the plain and simple. As far as peace goes, again, I'm surprised you're trying to dispute the timetable. We were approached by your coalition to discuss peace. You even made the initial offer. Not the other way around. Actually, GLoF and DT were both smaller than TPF. You're claiming it's been a coalition effort and everyone has chipped in? What about Nebula-X who did a grand total of two wars on us? What about AI who had not waged a war on us in over a month before this thread was opened? Is that why your coalition leaders forgot to invite both to the peace talks? No one has claimed that TORN is the dominating force in any way, shape or form. But your leader/spokesman sure is throwing threats like he is. We turned that into: "TORN is making threats". There was nothing about main hitters. But when you make threats about putting people's necks under jackboots and ten minutes later turn around and call your big bad friend to do it for you, you end up looking like what TORN looks like right now: a lighter version of GGA. Remember them? Yeah, they had an habit of running their mouth too. And then calling in their big friends when the going got too rough. The other part is: we were asked for a peace offer. We didn't "deal terms". We gave what your coalition asked: a set of terms. If your coalition didn't want any, they simply had not to ask. We've heard that in the past. What more can you do, really? We have the warchests to last a year or two. We've already been covered with anywhere between 2 to 3 wars per nation. Yet, in the past two weeks, we actually [i]grew[/i]. On February 24th, we had 4,183,971 NS. On March 6th, we have 4,196,725 NS. In two weeks of warfare, we actually [i]grew[/i] 13k NS. What are you gonna do? Make us raid you into oblivion?

Actually, we're the ones who are following the official explanation given for the announcement. We're the ones who are quoting Brehon's logs, where he clearly explained his justification for this DoW. We're also the ones quoting the logs between Brehon and Ted. It's Pacifica's allies who seem to want it both ways: receiving military help but refusing to admit you needed any. Accusing us of manipulating and dividing your coalition with our supreme mind control powers (right, chefjoe? I mean, it's either evil TOP supremely manipulating everybody or having to admit that ten of your coalition partners didn't think you needed to be at the peace table?) yet refusing to acknowledge problems at the peace talks. Even though multiple sets of logs, from your own coalition, prove you clearly wrong. So instead, we're left with disgracious posts accusing us of whining and something about tears (even if there isn't a single whiny post from TOP posted in this thread because we couldn't care less about who fills our war slots). Also, some hints at atrocities we would have committed and how we're getting a much deserved beatdown, despite an inability to point to any crime in specific.

Throwing missiles and commanding soldiers to their death take roughly ten minutes of my daily schedule. I need something else. @Otter: I take it that you do not dispute the other 13 points? I'm happy to see that we have finally agreed on the timetable of events.

Can't say we've ever been any close but your four years on this planet were interesting times. Happy anniversary.

Then do tell us where we are wrong. Assuming we're not the mind controllers your side paints us to be, this happened. 1)Some of your coalition partners approached us to see if peace was reachable. 2)That night, some of your coalition partners delivered to us an offer that was supposed to represent your entire front. 3)We rejected that offer. 4)The next day, more talking occured on both sides, in queries. 5)A real round of talks was thought necessary as we had tailored a peace offer of our own. 6)We told your coalition allies to contact everybody on your side. 7)We were told to proceed with "2 or 3 alliances missing". 8)We made our offer. 9)Your side got together, took about 15 minutes to think/discuss it. 10)Offer was rejected. 11)A joke counter-offer was made. Threats were also thrown by Ted from TORN. 12)Ted sought Brehon, explained to him that talks had occured and that you guys needed help in the lower to middle tier (see logs). 13)Brehon then gave us a courtesy notice about how they were about to DoW on us and why. In the why, he outlined specifically that he didn't tolerate not seeing either AI or NPO at the peace table and wanted to make sure that didn't happen again. It's explicit. 14)This DoW occured. Is that timetable wrong? If so, where is it and why?