Saber

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='19 February 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1266545109' post='2190925'] It is missing at least two alliances. How can it guarantee white peace for the entire side if the entire opposing side does not agree? It can't. [/quote] We talked on IRC and it you misunderstood. This offer was not: "We'll accept separate white peace if you offer it to us, please do." It is a proposed solution to the whole global conflict. Alliances Voodoo Nova talked about did not accept separate white peace his ally offered because they still have other allies in the war.

[quote name='joracy' date='19 February 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1266545237' post='2190932'] Believe it or not; I'm not really attempting to give a bad name to your offer. As I said; I agree with it. If I was in your position, I would do the same thing. I simply see a contradiction between continually going on about how we are dividing and conquering, and thats bad, and that you aren't, when you signed a document that is clearly designed to do that. The offer it's self I have no problem with, albeit it I find it somewhat humorous if you expect your entire side to get white peace. [/quote] We are not expecting everyone will jump up today and say the war is over. Rather we expect that it will take some time to wrap it up. However we have decided to make a first step. Now at least we are moving in the right direction and we have stopped discussing in circles. [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='19 February 2010 - 03:12 AM' timestamp='1266545569' post='2190952'] I'm not referring to NSO, but two alliances that have attacked my ally. Neither have stated they wish to declare white peace and if they would, I am positive their opponents would listen. [/quote] First time I hear of this. As we are talking on IRC right now we can discuss it there. Hopefully we can clear up this situation and find a suitable solution. [quote name='Londo Mollari' date='19 February 2010 - 03:27 AM' timestamp='1266546459' post='2190992'] You do realize that stunts like this aren't going to make your terms any better, don't you? [/quote] When Archon clarifies you position and points a few fingers you hail it. When we offer a global white peace and vow not to push any terms on anyone on opposing side regardless of situation changes you do this? It almost looks like a threat.

[quote name='jerdge' date='19 February 2010 - 02:41 AM' timestamp='1266543675' post='2190854'] I know that I personally mentioned that those that [i]attacked[/i] us are probably going to be asked something, because of their continued aggression and especially if they continue to insist in it. I don't see anything wrong in that: our nations are going to suffer more for this war and the benefit we could get from said reparations is in perspective becoming increasingly important. Although I am not in the MHA government, I think I can hope to correctly interpret most of the Hitchhikers' attitude when I say that we don't believe in harsh reparations as a mean to keep "down" the people we might otherwise "perceive as a threat": we simply have a culture mostly immune to paranoia (at least, this far), and there's nobody that I know of that we consider an "irreducible enemy", that we might think we need to "control". Quite the opposite, most of us believe in the strenght of fairness and in developing friendly relationships with everybody, including and sometimes [i]especially[/i] with the people we've been fighting against. I am in the end curious about your experience of Hitchhikers threatening "harsh" terms, would you mind to try document your assertions? I find them quite extravagant, but I might just be ignorant. [/quote] I'm going to follow lead of Archon and not log dump. If someone feels need to challenge my statements you know where to find me. But this thread is not about that in fact. This thread is about our offer of white peace for all and promise of no terms for opposing side regardless of circumstances. [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='19 February 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1266545109' post='2190925'] It is missing at least two alliances. How can it guarantee white peace for the entire side if the entire opposing side does not agree? It can't. [/quote] So you are coming down to a technicality? Offer has been out for hours and this was best you could think of. Sad. List is not complete for several reasons. First some alliances do not want to be considered part of the coalition as they entered only on behalf of their direct treaty partners. Ivan Moldavi elaborated on this in his post and as such have not signed on on this document. Some alliances we were not able to contact in a timely manner but they have expressed unofficially in earlier time that they will accept white peace for their allies and themselves as well. So, realistically, everyone on our side would accept these terms and everyone who is on the list makes a written promise that they will keep that word. If you have real intention of accepting the terms then you can state so and I am sure that alliances that haven't signed on can comment whether they are ok with it. But seriously, technicality?

[quote name='joracy' date='19 February 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1266543285' post='2190835']We'll just ignore that up there, but alright. I see you not demanding reps, which is fine(if I did what you did, I certainly wouldn't) and I can respect that. So, the only thing that makes it "divide and conquer " is that we intend to ask the alliances that hit us reps? But when you offer alliances a way out of the war, obviously benefiting you, it's great? I am seeing a contradiction with a document, with your name on it which is party designed to get people out of the war, and such rhetoric about divide and conquer strategies being horrible. You may have added a nice little white peace thing, but you are still attempting to do the exact same thing. You may want a global peace agreement, but asking people to talk to the alliances they are at war with, and then peacing out with them will not further that goal.[/quote] Our intentions are not to further our goals of pushing terms and reparations on remaining alliances. Our goal is to end this war for everyone. This is why we are giving guarantees that we will not be extracting any reps or imposing any terms. If you really want to give a bad name to our offer worse you can do is "Divide and White Peace". [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 February 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1266543659' post='2190852'] Surely by creating this thread you are lowering yourselves to our level then? [/quote] I don't think it's a dirty tactic to be honest. Archon had something he needed to say on OWF and some things to clarify. We had some things to say, offer and state. Now if you want to look at a dirty tactic it's bullying an alliance that is outnumbered by giving them ultimatums. Accept peace now or you will get harsh terms later on. It really says much about those alliances that even against the odds and threats they are still alongside us.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 February 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1266543134' post='2190829'] Such as this thread being a PR attempt to expose 'dirty tactics' and smear your opponents? Which therefore makes this thread a dirty tactic right? I'm not supporting bullying alliances into white peace or suffer reparations if they choose to stand by their allies, but I view this thread as a dirty tactic. [/quote] It's as much of a dirty tactic as Archons thread was. Personally I would not mind keeping all of this in private however making such a statement public puts much more strength into our word. By breaking this word we would tell whole word all our alliances are bloody liars. If we made it in private it carries much less weight.

My internet fails. Apologies at double post. Please delete

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='19 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266542417' post='2190800'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81093&st=0 I don't believe FOK will be involved with that, at least not in regards to Wolfpack's allies. MHA and Sparta I believe might be the alliances you are referring to, I think they've said something about this over the course of this thread. [/quote] I did not speak out of place. When I said FOK and MHA have threatened alliances to accept white peace now or face consequences and harsh terms later on, it is a fact. I am not referring to Wolfpack's allies. [quote name='Infidel Israeli' date='19 February 2010 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1266542669' post='2190807'] No I haven't, and all of the people voodoo just stated did not. These exact terms were offered to VA, they declined them, then joined this list. They said the terms were unacceptable because it was one sided, they had to stay neutral for the rest of the conflict besides the wars they were already in while we did not. Yet this list is them proposing the same terms to us we presented to them. They even went as far as to find the "definition" of white peace for us to show how we were in the wrong. Yet these terms are the same. Therefor, I say VA are hypocrites. Notice as I'm not talking about any other alliance besides VA. So i don't care about the growing trend in CN. [/quote] Guys get it in your head that there are hundred or so alliance in this war. TOP alone is fighting 21 or so, number of different wars between alliances is probably over a thousand. You don't need to point out your specific alliance did not threaten. However many have and it has started to happen much more often. I guess it's mob mentality. Kudos to you for not threatening and using dirty tactics. Main reason we made this thread is to provide an avenue to ending the war for all, and to establish standards which our side will follow no matter what. Also I believe it may help improve standards in CN overall by exposing dirty tactics that are used in wars such as these.

Ooops, double post. Sorry

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='19 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1266541531' post='2190758'] I have yet to see any other alliance at war with VA threaten reparations. Who are the alliances that are threatening VA with reps? [/quote] I assumed you meant overall. Overall in the war it is becoming more and more of a trend. Alliances are threatened to accept white peace or else down the line they will be required to pay serious reparations. It's a very cheap and dirty tactic to try and weaken our side so you can have free hand with those you wish to punish. Our side has vowed not to fall to that level and all alliance fighting on the other side will receive white peace no matter circumstances. [quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 February 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1266540964' post='2190729'] So you want to end this war, and you want White Peace..... Well you know it isn't going to happen right? Here's why. If we were to agree to a white peace with you, that would absolve you of any wrong doing you have commited by starting this war, and don't deny it, because you have you started an aggressive war because you 'thought' we were going to attack you, and have dressed it up as a pre-emptive strike. White Peace would involve us allowing you to get away with this without an apology or an acceptance that you did bad. If we pre-emptively attacked you, you'd be saying the exact same things we are because we both know that it is wrong. Had you provided solid evidence, that we (the whole of C&G) were going to attack TOP then things would be different, but you have not provided said evidence. Second, since declaring war on us, you have wrecked a lot of our !@#$, there's no denying that we have been weakened by this war (as have you, but you started this, we don't owe you a god damn thing) and naturally we want our stuff fixed, and we want you to pay for it. If someone were to break something of yours you would want compensation for it, like if someone crashed into your car, you'd want the money to get a new car. Do you understand yet? It's a very simple concept, but you're ignoring it and trying to spin this into us being the bad guys. So no white peace, we want our stuff back. And what with TOP's mighty warchests, paying us what we are owed for our broken stuff shouldn't be a problem right? [/quote] Read the thread. It has been said many times that if you find our offer unacceptable (and in your post you do) that you provide us with an alternative offer. We are willing to discuss. Our statement however stands. We will not demand any kind of reparations or enforce any kind of terms on opposing alliances regardless of circumstances. Offer stands until every alliance peaces out.

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='19 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266540122' post='2190684'] Actually, the only alliance that (as far as I know) have threatened reparations was Mafia. As far as I know, AI, KoTC, IAA & HoG have stated these terms were acceptable for VA. They declined. [/quote] This is not true. It has become more and more of a norm to threaten alliances on our side with reparations and harsh terms down the line if they do not quickly surrender. Alliances that have only entered to defend their allies and which would leave the war in a heartbeat if other side genuinely wanted to end this war. Alliances guilty of such threatening are for example MHA and FOK.

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='19 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1266539189' post='2190637'] *Makes it difficult to surrender when one side refuses to agree to anything other than White Peace [/quote] Given that I called you to offer an alternative I'd say we're open to something else than white peace. But you're free to use it as an excuse. Anyone who read the thread and my posts here knows what you said is not true.

[quote name='Jared' date='19 February 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1266535986' post='2190521'] While I do not know who has made such statements, I full hardly very much so disagree with any such sentiment. That being said I would be interested in hearing what you think the several ways are, if you would like to go into more detail. [/quote] I can honestly tell you that show of good faith would go a long way. We understand you have reasons to be upset and I understand why the all aggressive posturing is done (also why you are working to gain an even bigger advantage obviously) but a show of good faith on your part would be one possible step in the right direction. By show of good faith I mean genuine attempt at reaching end of this global conflict. Either through our offer or some alternative. Another idea that popped up before on OWF is some sort of mandatory NAP with a long period. Those are two that come up in my mind, I really doubt there are many other ways to ensure "no repeat performance". Most of them will rely on trust and trust is not built by being unreasonable. Also I doubt TOP's military power can be seriously endangered even in case of total destruction. 220 battle hardened guys with nothing to lose and with 178 Manhattan Projects, 179 SDIs, 149 WRCs and 136 Hidden Silos are a threat even if zero infra/zero warchest. All that's needed is 1000 infra (9m?) and some cash and we can go to 3k+ nukes. Don't take this as a threat. It's not intended as one. It's intended to show that some level of trust will be absolutely required as only means to actually remove us as a military threat is to make us delete all our wonders which is very very unlikely to happen. In all other situations you'll have to trust us.

[quote name='Viking' date='19 February 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1266534872' post='2190482'] I didn't exactly explain myself so it's not really your fault. I'm also not against white peace, just illustrating that negotiations during an ongoing war can't really progress as long as sides cling to what they want and toss the ball back saying "don't like it? well where's your idea?". [/quote] I assumed "acceptable" did not mean "with no concessions". That's where we misunderstood.

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1266534273' post='2190457'] Jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them [/quote] Damn you. "This is Spartaaaaa!" Was in my worfsaber mode. [img]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x116/alaska9808/Wrofsaber.jpg[/img] [quote name='Viking' date='19 February 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1266534216' post='2190453'] What I mean is the way it should be isn't one side issuing terms that are acceptable to them, because that means by default the terms are probably unacceptable to the other side. In a war with no clear victor, this type of thinking leads to further hostilities that degenerate further from the starting point, until eventually one side wins. To broker peace during a war that isn't decided, you have to make [i]concessions[/i] that aren't favorable to your side as a show of good faith, because every educated citizen on Planet Bob recognizes that a blanket white peace is simply a version of a cease-fire, and does little to address the problems at hand. [/quote] Perhaps it was lost in translation. What I meant we offered something we'd accept or find reasonable. I didn't think that offers should be only acceptable to one side. In essence we are in agreement, perhaps with difference in opinion on white peace offer.

[quote name='Viking' date='18 February 2010 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1266533619' post='2190424'] No....no not really. [/quote] So I'm assuming we should offer something we ourselves find unacceptable so when you accept we reject it? We made an offer we would accept. Now if you don't like it make an offer you would accept. Then we can talk more. We have had enough of people threatening alliances on our side with harsh consequences if they don't abandon their allies right now. [quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1266533747' post='2190431'] Madness?! [/quote] Poetic freedom I guess. I'd say the war could be called madness given the way it had gone on. Just remember all the things NpO did and I'm not sure it can be given another name. But we're getting off topic.

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1266533211' post='2190409'] So the actual point of this thread is to offer peace to any alliance willing to agree not to reenter, in an individual fashion? EDIT: Wow, I managed to just double post. My apologies. I shouldn't post while in a hurry [/quote] I am not sure about what you are confused. No, we are offering a solution to the global conflict. We are also promising to not demand terms or reparations regardless of potential developments on the battlefield. Making it "you are offering separate white peace individually" you are really trying to simplify the offer into something it is not. There is a huge difference between this offer which guarantees everyone on your side will get white peace no matter what and offering separate white peace so we can gain upper hand to punish other alliances.

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1266532394' post='2190390'] Also, if I could clarify, as the OP is not very clear on this, does this mean none of the alliances that have signed this will accept any peace terms that do not ensure the entire grouping gets peace? EDIT: Looking back at Pingu's original post, those responses are entertaining xD [/quote] I can speak for TOP alone on this one (we didn't do an coalition wide polling on this question) that we will not accept any peace terms that do not ensure peace for everyone on our side. TOP's goal in this conflict is to end this conflict for all our allies, friends and brothers in arms. While we are ready to face consequences of our actions, we do not think global destruction of these proportions is necessary.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='18 February 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1266531080' post='2190333'] Oh ho, if you actually took a step back and read my posts, I was just simply pointing out how bizarre it was that eight alliances who offered up their surrender that afternoon then took it back (which is fine in my book, no qualms there) turned around that night and actually publicly asked for the surrender of those whom a few hours before they were on the verge of submitting to. I expressly stated as well that if those names weren't on the announcement, the OP would just simply be unorthodox and nothing more. Also yes, that's me, Capt. Torpedo. [/quote] I've explained this. There is a big difference between separate white peace and global offer of white peace and promise we will not push terms on anyone in any circumstances. In your case it's a way to weaken our side so that you can more easily force down reps on those you find guilty parties. In our case it is attempt to end the war. Yes, in a manner that is acceptable to us but isn't that the way it should be. [quote name='TypoNinja' date='18 February 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1266531287' post='2190345'] Do you honestly give people that little credit? Your DoW essentially said "We don't like you, and think we can take you now so we're jumping in". Now you think maybe you can't win after all you want white peace? After telling the world you are fine with preemptive strikes and aggressive wars when you think you have the upper hand you expect to walk away with white peace from your aggressive war now that its not going your war. Either you are stupid, or you think everybody else is. If you seriously want peace, you will need to convince C&G that you are either unable or unwilling to produce a repeat performance as soon as the next war rolls around. [/quote] Neither me nor Avernite had anything to do with the way the war was started. However we did have something to do with this statement. If you wish to keep blaming us that is your right, however we've called for the other side to offer alternatives if they find our current offer unacceptable. I can think of several ways that "convincing of not producing a repeat performance" could be achieved. I am however not really certain CnG would agree with it given most statements made so far which came down to either "crippling terms" or "crippling destruction with depletion of warchests and tech". Both of which are more likely to cause long term resentment then true happy ending.

[quote name='Jared' date='18 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1266529598' post='2190274'] Ya where so evil for not whiting peace from aggressors that attacked us out of the clear blue, we are so nasty for not wanting to send a message that anybody can attack us and get off free and clear. Forgive for our evil ways, for we have yet to find the light of reason. [/quote] If you find our offer of global white peace unacceptable you are free to offer alternatives. But remember, global peace, not divide and conquer sprinkled with threats.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='18 February 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1266529513' post='2190271'] I'll clarify. TOP became interested in white peace the second they realized absolute victory wasn't happening. They know better than I when they consider that point to have been reached. [/quote] Fact that NpO and main reason for the WHOLE war peaced out and every other front was in process of peacing out surely had nothing to do with it. But this is not the place nor time to discuss this. This thread is about a Joint statement from our alliances, and our genuine attempt to find an end to the global conflict.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='18 February 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1266528416' post='2190222'] Defensive sir, your far to defensive. Maybe your alliance leader might know? Maybe I was making that statement in the vain chance that your Government might have input on this thread? I don't think I was being offensive. Thanks for the sarcasm though. I'm not fighting TOP directly, whether you guys get smashed and hammered for reps really makes no difference to me. I was just curious that maybe your Government might have discussed such things. and have a rough number Tech/Money in mind. You know you could have just said " I don't know I'm not government" instead of trying to look cool with the response you gave. hey ho, matters not. [/quote] I'm Grand Chancellor (MoFA). Sorry if it sounded hostile but I really don't know.

[quote name='SonOfHoward' date='18 February 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1266527218' post='2190184'] I hope this is sincere for if it is I applaud you for taking this stance since I for one don't agree with reps period. However; if this some sort of trick for PR, or to allow you to rebuild so you can force reps back onto others in the event the tables are turned shame on you! I encourage all leaders to take this seriously and talk it out.(Or hug it out whicever) [img]http://images1.makefive.com/images/200840/549601ba133c661d.jpg[/img] [/quote] It's a genuine statement and offer. Regardless of any changes to strategic situation undersigned alliance will not enforce any terms on the opposing alliance. This means even if the war suddenly took an unexpected turn and we had 2:1 or even bigger advantage we would still accept white peace on all fronts with all alliances. No one needs to surrender separately even on your side. Instead if you find this war unnecessary and wish it to end put pressure on alliance on your side and leaders on your side to find a way to end this war. Instead of blaming it on other side, make genuine attempts to end this madness. We have done that.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='18 February 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1266527287' post='2190185'] So in this thread we have established that TOP/RON wont get white peace. That arguement aside, the posts above hit on a good point, other than something thats not going to happen ie white peace what do Top/Ron deem as acceptable terms? You must realise by now that you wont get white peace, so your either willing to fight on until you all reach ZI and your treaty partners reach decimation, Or your willing to accept terms (reps) if its the later, what is acceptable in your eyes for you to surrender? [/quote] How am I supposed to know that? I am not supreme overlord of TOP (although TOPers, you can always make me ), and I really cannot know what we would find acceptable. However if offers of global peace are put on the table we will be able to find out. Am I supposed to make a 10 hypothetical offers so Heptagon can vote on them so I can answer you here? EDIT: Apologies if it sounded hostile but really we can't know until it happens. But my previous statement that it would have to be global peace stands. TOP will not abandon anyone.

[quote name='NoFish' date='18 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1266526409' post='2190156'] Your "solution" being, presumably, one that lets everyone on your side off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist? [/quote] Instead of trying to divide and conquer us so that you can enforce whichever terms you wish on what you find "guilty" alliance, offer an alternative solution to the global conflict. All we've seen so far are threats, attempts to divide us and then destroy the remainder. If you find our offer unacceptable you know what the next step is. That is if you really want to end this war and not continue to push an agenda. As I said, ball is in your court.

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='18 February 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1266526240' post='2190151'] Are you, as an alliance known as TOP, still following the idea of white peace or no surrender? [/quote] Any terms or offers will be examined on case to case basis by our legislative chamber Heptagon and all our members. Up until today there were no offers. Current sentiment in most of the membership is that they would prefer white peace over all other solutions however we are not refusing to seek out an end to the global conflict if it can be achieved. We are not refusing to talk about ending the global conflict. While concern for our nations is not of high consequence to average TOPer, concern for wellbeing of our allies and friends is. That is why we will discuss avenues to achieving global peace. As current Grand Chancellor I am available for discussion. However I can tell you beyond a doubt that Heptagon nor TOP will never accept any kind of peace which does not include all alliance on our side getting peace which they are ok with. EDIT: wrote "ever", should be "never".