CaptainImpavid

Congrats and welcome to our new brethren, whoever they may be. /I knew Guru Order when they were thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big.

I'm torn between my reluctance to cheer the GOONS on and my sheer, unabated glee at misfortune for salthius. If this turns out to have not been true I'll be forced to resort to arson.

[quote name='Fantastico' date='25 February 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1267128066' post='2203365'] Instead of speaking through proxies like yourself, maybe it's time for Fark to reconsider its boycott of this diplomatic venue? They even could start their own topic of what the NSO needs for peace with them, too. [/quote] I've only been in here because I saw an ugly trend of people accepting as true baseless accusations and incorrect suppositions against my friends and former alliance mates. I sought to correct that. Then I tried to offer earnest advice to Ivan about how to best approach people I still know rather well, and I admit my frustration at being run around in circles by him to have resulted in me washing my hands of him. Which I do of this entire thread now. If you need me, I'll be watching women's curling.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1267125639' post='2203314'] Are you stating that Jim had a premonition in regards to those logs because he stated it was a surrender prior to my elaboration on the refusal of terms? As for going back, since we are not willing to do the review, does it matter? [/quote] We're back to the review, that was taken off the table now...what, almost 20 pages back? Let me distill the very essence of what I've been trying to convey to you (and to the silent readers out there who might actually be able to, you know, listen). Thus: [b]IF[/b] you want peace, and want a better peace offer than you previously were given, you need to do two things: 1)Cease making posts on the OWF that your opponents could/would take offense at. and 2)GO TALK TO THEM. Be prepared to accept compromises. Be flexible. If you [b]DON'T[/b] want peace, say so publicly, so that we can put an end to people lamenting that you're being kept in a war against your will.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 01:38 PM' timestamp='1267123329' post='2203258'] I never claimed that you all are. I believe the logs are fairly clear, regardless of my reaction within them, that Randomly Jim did not consider it a mutual peace agreement but did consider it a surrender. Since I can not surrender then I am left with continuing to fight as the only alternative at this point. [/quote] Ok, see that doesn't answer my question. I'll clarify. Those logs simply state that Jim was calling the peace deal your surrender because it looks like, from those same logs, you are trying to get out of it as a simple white peace without having to call it a defeat. You may not have meant it that way, and I don't know if you did or not, but that it how it looks. So, at any point did you or have you gone back and said "look it is really the connotation of the word 'surrender' we don't like. We by no means intend to claim you didn't emerge victorious in our fight, but we don't want to surrender. Is there some middle ground we can find here?" Did that ever happen? Is that ever going to happen? Or are you simply banking on the fact that, in all likelihood, you will irritate Fark to the point where such a compromise is no longer an option and you won't have to feel bad for not thinking of it earlier?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1267120453' post='2203195'] Hmm, no. I claimed they never offered white peace. There is no rebuttal to that. Randomly Jim posting out of context logs that were later clarified via direct communication as something different than what was initially presented isn't even close. I haven't attempted to tarnish anyone. I have stated simple facts. I told Randomly Jim that he could speak with my subordinates and he refused to do so. I spoke to him and then he later lied to one of my subordinates telling them that he had not heard from me. I went back to him to discuss the terms being rejected by my alliance and he changed them into a surrender unilaterally and gave me an ultimatum. Afterwards he stated that peace was not an option. Shortly after that he lied to Grub and told him that Fark was planning to give us peace in order to "help them out". But that just wasn't true. Nothing I have stated is untrue. If it tarnishes him that is because it is applicable. I posted a simple and fairly common notice of cancellation and was somehow labelled as having done so as part of a plan to use it as a propagandist smear campaign against Fark. Do you even realize how absurd that sounds? So yes, I do concern myself with how my comments to Fark, especially Randomly Jim, who to me has proven himself either incompetent or a blatant liar, are percieved and used. [/quote] You claimed that Fark had never offered you "white peace like everyone else got" (paraphrase, though I can find the numerous quotes if you'd like) You were offered the same kind of "white" peace everyone else got. Holding out for a very specific and narrow definition of white peace which I honestly haven't frequently seen used (btw if your definition of "white peace" is everyone walks away and there is no victor, and you've always offered white peace, why does your wiki list most of your wars as "victories?") was something that was brought up after your original objections were debunked. With you it has been a cavalcade of "Well what about this?!" "Here" "Ok...but what about THIS?!" "Here" "Ok, I'll give you that but you didn't do THIS!!!!" etc. You descriptions of how things unfolded contradict not only what Jim posted earlier, but also some of your own previous claims, and also much of what I've seen discussed behind-the-scenes with SF. It may be that is largely how you have perceived it, or have come to remember it, but that isn't the same thing. You have, on numerous occasions, both here on the OWF and in IRC, stated that you speak for NSO and that no decisions are made without your approval. Can Jim then be to blame for wanting to wait to speak to you? I can't speak to the rest because I don't have 100% of the information and can't speak authoritatively, but I know Jim and I've come to be all too familiar with you, and I think I can suss out pretty well the truth, which lies somewhere in the middle of everything. I can say that at one point we (all of SF) were 100% expecting to peace out with you, that we we under the impression that you would be returning imminently to say whether or not you'd be agreeing to peace out...and you redeclared on Fark, which honestly surprised the hell out of us all. I know Jim, I've clashed with him (regularly) in the past, when I was still in Fark. He is brash, abrasive, blunt, in other words many of the descriptors you claim for yourself. However, he is not a liar, nor incompetent, and he knows when to but bluster and ego aside and get down to brass tacks when need be. Should you like him? I dunno, I frequently didn't, when I had to deal with him regularly. But is he respectable and forthright? Always. As to the "i didn't mean for any of this to happen, I made a simple cancellation thread" statements: you brought up Fark, and the lack of peace terms, and have done so in several other threads before this. The conversation took off here along those lines, and I can hardly credit you with being surprised that happened. You have gone back and forth since then claiming you want peace but are denied it, and claiming you don't really want peace but that it would be nice. All the while random and largely inane squabbling circles the field. My offer to work earnestly to use your earlier offer as a starting point to restart talks still stands. If you actually decide you DO want peace, and are actually willing to come to the table and discuss it healthily, please let me know. EDIT: just saw your logs. Ivan, I don't think those say what you think they say. At no point do you say "Ok, well we concede to defeat, but we don't want to surrender can we call it something else" and by the same token at no point does Jim say "we will only accept your surrender and seeing you driven before us and hearing the lamentations of your women." From those logs it looks like, to Jim, you were trying to be able to back out without admitting you lost, and Jim wasn't going for that, whereas you were focused on the word "surrender" and didn't bother trying to negotiate from there. So, as I said, have you even TRIED to find a middle ground? Or are we all still incompetent and liars?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 12:32 PM' timestamp='1267119373' post='2203179'] My alliance is fine with continuing to fight. While I think peace would be a good idea at present it isn't because I have people at my back begging me for it. Randomly Jim told me that when they were ready they would contact us. Since they are obviously the victors and obviously in control at this point me going back again after already being told no doesn't make a lot of sense and will just end up posted here as me begging Fark for peace or some other nonsense. [/quote] You're aware that Fark doesn't post here other than to make announcements or to directly answer accusations from others, right? So how would you approaching them to resume negotiations end up, at any point, being posted here as you "begging for peace" unless you posted it yourself? Nothing has been posted in here by them other than as a direct rebuttal of your claims and those of your members. You claimed you had never been offered peace, they refuted that. You claimed you had never been offered the same peace terms others received, they refuted that. You yourself have in numerous places tried to tarnish the good name of both Fark in general and Jim in particular. Funny how now you claim you won't try to communicate with them to settle the one (seemingly minor) issue that kept you from accepting peace when it was previously offered, because THEY might try to use it against YOU. "The wicked flee where no man pursueth?" Also, how is it that you won't talk to them privately but you are happy to talk about them publicly? (in the process serving to undermine all future peace efforts?)

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267115649' post='2203109'] When I went back to inform Randomly Jim of that he stated that it wasn't up for discussion and that instead of it being mutual peace, it was our surrender. So again, what? [/quote] So have you at all even tried to go back and see if you can get him to agree to word that differently? I mean, it isn't like he was asking you to include the word surrender in any announcement or anything, simply that the beer review was a "surrender term," which could easily be simply the colloquial term used here for ages as a synonym for peace term. Did you at least even go to him and ask if he could agree to view it as a "concession," or whatever. I mean, USN managed to get to word it as "withdrawing from the field." Surely you could come up with something, especially since it seems to be a quibbling issue over what a particular term SIGNIFIES, and not even what was going to ever be explicitly stated in any announced peace agreement. I mean, something as nebulous as implied meaning can SURELY be worked out peaceably.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1267112963' post='2203068'] Regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assessment what you don't acknowledge (know?) is that no peace is on the table at present to accept or reject. I have therefore offered what I believe to be a simple means of securing it without subjecting my people to what I consider to be undue humiliation. That is: The NSO admits defeat at the hands of Fark, GOD, GO and CSN. The NSO agrees not to re-enter. So far as I am concerned that is an offer on the table from us. I do not expect it to be accepted but it is an offer just the same. [/quote] A nice offer, and one that two weeks ago would I am sure have been met eagerly. Now, given the ways in which you have, in Fark's eyes at least, slighted their every effort at finding peace, it may not be met so warmly. I will, however, endeavor to see that the offer is at least taken seriously. If you are genuinely interested in peace and using the above offer as a starting point to negotiate, I'll be more than happy to offer my services to help mediate things. To start, as a compromise, in lieu of the beer review, I would ask the following. I have a dinner party this weekend and need to prepare a few appetizers (really). So if you would, assuming of course this would all be wrapped up by then, ask your members if they have any good recipes to provide, that would be greatly appreciated. Things involving melted cheese are especially appreciated.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1267108266' post='2202996'] So it ultimately does come down to whether or not Fark et al want a perpetual war. My alliance has lost 70% of its NS. Because of the lack of staggers a lot of my people have already made it into peace mode, where they are rebuilding as best they can so that they can come back out at the lower ranges when needed. We are fine with fighting. We are not here complaining that the big bad alliances are picking on us. We are simply acknowledging that we want the same treatment others that entered via treaty obligations received and I can't really figure out how anyone on the opposing side can state that we don't "deserve" it when that really isn't part of the equation. We have fought a clean upfront battle from the very beginning. We took steps to assure that our allies that entered on our behalf gained peace and we will continue to fight so long as it necessary to achieve our stated aims, which isn't victory, it is survival. [/quote] Thank you so very much, Ivan, for perfectly prefacing the points that I was returning here to make. Let us cast our minds back a bit, shall we, to another situation in which an alliance faced a "perpetual war." If you all recall FAN (hi FAN) and their...spot of bother, shall we say, with NPO, there came a time where they adopted tactics that some would say, and many of you in here today DID say, we not conducive to attaining peace. They were belligerent, offensive, and rude to their opponents. They, of course, did these things with more humor and style than NSO is managing, but they had, shall we say, similar attitudes towards their opponents. But there is one big, glaring difference. FAN, for the most part, adopted this attitude once NPO had redeclared on them for "terms violations" and FAN had, by their own admission, [b]stopped seeking any sort of peace agreement with NPO[/b]. That's the kicker. Ivan is acting now, and more or less flat out admitting in his post above, that he is not interested in a peace agreement. (except on his terms, which seem to be nebulous and ever shifting.) He is not interested in compromise, not interested in attending negotiations, not interested in "taking terms seriously." What he does seem interested in is trying to lead his alliance into a perpetual war situation despite the good-faith efforts of his opponents to find a peaceful resolution. Let me state now, for the record, that NSO will only fail to achieve peace for as long as they refuse to come to the table with the intention of actually, you know, negotiating. Showing up, making demands that you be treated like [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81162]everyone[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565]else[/url], and then storming off in a huff when you are is not what is generally understood as expert statescraft. If you don't like what is offered, make a counter proposal, not a stormoff. As I believe I said earlier, you may not like what we ask, you may not even like us, but we are NOT being unreasonable here. We are not refusing to offer or grant peace, merely refusing to be manipulated through lies and parlor tricks into being the bad guy. You say that you've conducted a clean fight, which may be true, especially since the mechanics of war rather limit other options, but you haven't conducted a clean peace negotiation, which is, and will remain, our only bone of contention.

This utter nonsense about the beer reviews serving no point other than to humiliate an opponent is...well I already said utter nonsense. Completely ignoring the fact that it has been what, 8-10 pages since it was made abundantly clear that particular term is no longer even on the table and so continued discussion is more or less moot and highly suspect of being borderline retarded, there are a few "truths" being tossed around that stem either from ignorance or deliberate attempts at misdirection. The beer reviews are supposed to be a fun way of letting an opponent gracefully admit defeat. No forced apologies for whatever misdeeds the public at large would lay at their feet, no embarrassing prostrations. Just a simple beer review that, if all goes well, offers two former combatants to socialize in a non-blowing-the-crap-out-of-each-other setting. Honestly, I'm told there was some discontent in Fark that NSO was even asked to do beer reviews since they didn't deserve the honor, so to speak. So we have the purpose of the beer reviews. Now let us move on to the issue of Fark trying to shove the beer review down NSO's throat. Go back and read the logs posted by Jim 10-12 pages ago. The ones where he details this whole process. Peace was brought up, the beer review offered as a term (for the reasons listed above) and then Fark heard nothing back after several attempts to contact Ivan. Then they hear on the OWF that Ivan has a counter proposal, the health food review, and, despite being blindsided on the matter and having the diplomatic process co-opted for a publicity ploy, agree and continue the discussion in good faith. Fark and NSO agree to go to their respective allies to verify that this would be acceptable...and Fark never hears from Ivan again until he once again brings the whole mess up on the OWF. None of that really sounds like Fark trying to cram a beer review down NSO's throat to humiliate them. I imagine that if they had gone to Fark privately, as a continuation of the peace process that Ivan apparently wasn't all that committed to, and said that the review was unacceptable because it was degrading, it would have been all too easy to come to some other agreement. But instead it was latched onto as some retarded tool for Ivan to bring to the OWF and make it sound like Fark wants to keep NSO in eternal bondange and that they want to make Terry Howard viceroy of NSO. Fark, nor anyone else, wants to keep NSO in any kind of eternal war. We simply insist that, as part of any peace process, NSO deals in good faith, rather than subverting the whole thing as a mad OWF publicity stunt. As I said. Utter. Nonsense.

[quote name='Lennox' date='24 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1267045324' post='2201960'] No, surrendering is the act of admitting defeat. Therefore you have already contradicted yourself. [/quote] [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267048255' post='2202040'] An admission of defeat, at least to me, is not the same as surrender. A defeated army can still fight, albeit poorly. The NSO has been thoroughly defeated in this conflict. It is impossible to claim otherwise when facing 12 to 1 odds. It simply is. That isn't the same thing as accepting terms that are different from what I was initially told would be available to me though and it isn't the same as just giving up and surrendering. If we are destined to be in perpetual war, then we will simply be ankle biters indefinitely, or until I am couped. [/quote] Yo Lennox, might want to check out the official talking points handbook real quick.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='24 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1267042159' post='2201881'] [color="#0000FF"]Oh, I get it now. NSO was disrespectful to you? Sure you've been much more volatile and quite frankly started whatever bad blood there is between you, but because NSO didn't act timid and bow before you they clearly must pay the price that comes with not respecting your authority. You know, I am pretty sure that if the situations were reversed that the NSO would not be so petty with you as you are being with them.[/color] [/quote] Ah yes, it was us who publicly threatened the other with war over a stupid, minor incident that could have been quietly and amicably handled. It was us who continued to snipe and make insulting comments about them in every one of their threads. It was us who consistently insult the other and call them a terrible alliance. It was us who labeled the other the "D-Bag Front." It was us who routinely lied to the rest of the world about the circumstances of our communications. We are humbled and contrite, oh great one! Please teach us, that we might learn better to coexist with our brothers!

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1267040593' post='2201858'] Fark didn't give out the same generic peace offer to everyone. Some had to do beer reviews. Others didn't. [/quote] Either way NSO isn't/wasn't being singled out. I'll ask you this, to put things a different way. NSO expects Fark to treat them like all Fark's other opponents were treated. Is it not reasonable, as the flip side of that coin, for Fark to expect NSO to treat them like all Fark's other opponents, then? It all comes down to the fact that one's actions and outcomes do not exist in a vacuum. The each influence the other. Fark, and CSN, and GOD, and GO, and anyone else fighting NSO are well within their rights to say that mercy and generosity given will be in direct proportion to the respect and civility received. Simple as that.

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1267038449' post='2201813'] No. All of Fark's other opponents did not have to do a beer review. NSO is not asking to be treated nicely. Their requests now are the exact same as they were at the conclusion of the Npo-\m/ conflict... they simply want white peace. [/quote] I will reword, MOST had to, and therefore NSO isn't being treated "differently." [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565"]only one I could find on short-attention-span notice.[/url] You may not agree with Fark's requests, but they aren't doing it out of spite and they aren't being totally unreasonable.