mitchh

[quote name='Auctor' date='19 February 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1266597531' post='2192122'] I think raasaa's point just flew over yall's heads there. [/quote] Feel free to drop some knowledge on a brother then.

[quote name='raasaa' date='19 February 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1266593591' post='2192045'] Is that by choice ?? [/quote] We certainly weren't coerced into that decision, if that's what you mean.

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 10:14 AM' timestamp='1266596042' post='2192084'] Who the hell is VOC and why do they matter for a thread by the EIC (East Indian Company)? [/quote] I can't tell if you are genuinely confused, but for your sake and others: Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie, or VOC. In English, it translates to Dutch East India Company. It's official title, and how it is referred to is the former.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1266544075' post='2190871'] Is this what happened? Or is this a what if? It makes sense, for sure, but I was under the impression that IRON just DoW'd with TOP against CnG... It was never implied that CnG was such a long way from joining the conflict, however, the fact remains, they were brought in SOLELY because of the PEA. coulda woulda shoulda means !@#$, unless you are learning from the mistake for future use. Can you honestly say that actions PEA took were in their best interest? In retrospect to what has occurred? [/quote] You are correct. The point is that they were going to become involved unless they acted out of character. I wasn't involved in planning the various scenarios and how they would have panned out, so I can't comment on that.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266543890' post='2190861'] So will you admit you were wrong in 'pre-emptively' attacking C&G? I'm not going to begin with reparations because that's not my place to say how much or anything like that. [/quote] Wrong in what sense?

[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266540883' post='2190725'] I'm not gov., but from my view on the C&G side of things, you all will have to ask for terms before they're going to be offered. [/quote] As has been said, these are ours to you. If you don't like them, you are free to offer up yours or posit that you aren't willing to negotiate at this point.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1266540273' post='2190688'] I believe you meant Fark. [/quote] Woops. Too many acronyms, thanks.

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='18 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1266539189' post='2190637'] *Makes it difficult to surrender when one side refuses to agree to anything other than White Peace [/quote] Not true. [quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1266530440' post='2190311'] 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] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2190311 Edit: Saber beat me by two seconds

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1266538367' post='2190607'] Definition of "near future" would be IF CnG's direct allies were attacked. IF that happened, CnG was prepared to enter in defense of her allies. [...] The "you were gonna be" arguments are based on IFs [/quote] 1. Fark declares war on NSO 2. IRON declares war on Fark, and therefore SF 3. RoK activates treaty with Vanguard, and therefore CnG Hopefully this clears up idea that CnG were such a long way away from joining the conflict.

[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603'] I got a big kick out of this. [/quote] Glad to be of service. [quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603'] "Ummm... we attacked you for no reason, now we're in a world of trouble... sooooo... white peace?" [/quote] If I wanted to watch bad reruns, I'd be watching TV, not attacking at update. This point has been covered umpteen times. [quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266538272' post='2190603'] Surrender or fight. Your only real options kiddies. [/quote] Makes it difficult to surrender when there are no terms, you know?

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='18 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1266529120' post='2190258'] Cool thanks for explaining to me, I was just curious if you guys had discussed it. No offence intended towards you guys. [/quote] None taken.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='18 February 2010 - 03:26 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] Saber is in TOP government. Any votes on peace agreements falls to the Heptagon, of which he is not a part. What he meant was that he cannot know what terms TOP would find agreeable, as we haven't been offered even a ballpark, so he would have to be making arbitrary motions to the Heptagon to get an idea.

[quote name='flak attack' date='18 February 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1266511973' post='2189787'] Archon was trying to stop the war from the moment Polar hit \m/. His attempts that night were no different from his attempts the previous 8 or so nights. [/quote] That line was in regards to his analogy, especially once Archon had knowledge of the impending attacks.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1266511430' post='2189767'] it was added as compliment to ridiculous warchests, i can take it out if you want i'm actually having some very civil conversations with the TOP folks i've been fighting. [/quote] [quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266510150' post='2189730'] [...]saying "give me your money and your car!". [...] [/quote] Didn't read that way to me, but thank you for the kind words. As an aside, I have enjoyed what seems like half of MK posting on our forums

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1266510150' post='2189730'] Alright, so there's a dude punching a bratty kid further down the street... a finely dressed man pleads with the dude to stop punching the bratty kid. You shout "hey, i'm heading up to help you deal with that bratty kid!" and start running over. Rather than hit the bratty kid, you (and your friends)instead approach my car from the front, punch me in the face, saying "give me your money and your car!". My friends get out of the car, and we all throw punches. The finely dressed man says to the dude "seriously, i can't continue to ask you to stop punching this bratty kid, my friends are being attacked over there." Dude says "fine." Finely dressed man rushes in to help organize the efforts. A few more of my friends join in the fray. The Dude, after catching his breath from beating on the bratty kid, comes over and punches you/your friends. you say "maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all, i have more money than you, and your car smells kind of funny, can we just call this even?" Is that better? [/quote] Not really. I don't recall anybody demanding any material goods from CnG at any point, among other things.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 09:45 AM' timestamp='1266507904' post='2189690'] okay... so you come in front of the car and punch me in the face... my friends still get out of the car, and you say "whoa, guys, relax, i can't handle all this, let's forget the whole thing." you still should see consequences for your assault, and possible jail time. Using either this analogy or the actual events that take place, it still illustrates cowardice from the aggressor. -TOP&Co. were paranoid of the potential threat that CnG would counter should TOP/IRON attack CnG's allies during Polar-\m/ -TOP&Co. preemptively attack CnG, and later admit that it was a pretty silly decision -Treaties fly about, world starts to crumble, CnG starts to have a statistical advantage -TOP&Co. no longer feel this is a fight worth fighting, and request that we all go our separate ways -IRON makes an unofficial "joint" post regarding white peace, which again illustrates the "my bad, my bad" mindset -If TOP&Co. do feel that they wrongfully declared an aggressive attack on CnG, they should seek to surrender. [/quote] Fundamental difference. It also isn't "We punch you then friends come out then we beg for forgiveness." We've been at war for weeks, with millions of NS lost on both sides. I'm good with fighting for awhile. Do the terms that I would accept exist? Yes, but I'm more than happy continuing this fight. You're also completely ignoring the urging of peace by Archon towards \m/, but that would mess up your analogy.

[quote name='Gn0xious Jr' date='18 February 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1266505695' post='2189659'] If you run up behind me, punch me in the back of the head while I'm trying to get in my car, and the other 3 people in my car get out to assist while I'm dazed, you don't get to say "whoopsie, my bad, this obviously is more than I can handle... let's just go our separate ways." you face the consequences of your actions, which may include some jail time for assault. [/quote] I really wish people would stop using analogies to make a point. It isn't a good way to prove something. We weren't behind you. We were very much in front of you and heading towards you. CnG knew of the pending attack.

My shout out goes to Squinjypoo "O_OD#EDKDKF:K !!!!!!@@(((((((((( :?" is all I have to say after our war exchanges.

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='11 February 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1265930726' post='2175792'] I do want to wish Mitcch all the best. I'm sure he will do a good job. Congratz. [/quote] Thanks arexes #1

[quote name='KingEd' date='11 February 2010 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1265950029' post='2176607'] Sure, I get that. However, according to [i]their[/i] Charter, which is their law, not ours--- "D: The Imperator has the ability to declare war, or obtain peace, based on the Legion's current active treaties. Only in the most dire of situations, with the most convicting evidence against another alliance, may the Imperator declare an aggressive war." This points to the prior signed, [s]not signed[/s], surrender terms pretty valid. I still cant get it through my head how the Imperator of an alliance would allow an inferior ranking Cabinet/Council member conduct negotiations when it's clear that they had different intentions and even worse, weren't on the same page when it came to the well-fare of their alliance. [/quote] Correct. Which is why they get to interpret whether Hubbs supposed consent could be vetoed. How they run their government is mandated by their charter, not foreign entities.

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='11 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1265949789' post='2176585'] Sure, find me on IRC while I dig them up. [/quote] Edited for clarity. I'd also prefer that the dialogue happen here, as I'm sure everyone is interested in them.

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='11 February 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1265949279' post='2176554'] According to their various gov members, it seems a whole lot of contradicting events happened actually. I'll refer to my previous post for the rest. [/quote] I must have missed the contradicting statements from the various gov members. Could you direct me to them? All I've seen is logs of Hubb vaguely agreeing to white peace, and Fingolfin denying that this was the intended message. None of which I would call contradicting, as I haven't seen Hubb consent that he definitively agreed to a white peace.

[quote name='KingEd' date='11 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1265948978' post='2176536'] I mean this nicely; who's truly in [i]charge[/i] of your alliance during times of [i]war[/i]? I honestly have no clue. [/quote] The Imperator (Hubb) is the chief executive. The Consulate consists of four other offices. Combined, the Imperator and Consulate vote on treaties, requiring majority for it to pass. The Imperator and Consulate have signed peace agreements jointly in the past, so take that as you will. As an answer to your question, I'd venture that the Imperator 'runs' the alliance, with each office performing their respective alliances. No one person is really in charge.

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='11 February 2010 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1265948607' post='2176514'] No doubt, what I'm saying is that you don't make the decision then have half the government scrambling to understand what happened. [/quote] [quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='11 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1265946825' post='2176395'] Seriously, I'm tired of dealing with your government's incompetence. This is probably the first time I've seen an alliance of this size act with so much indecision and confusion with [b]something that is so simple[/b]. [/quote] Bolding is mine. I'd contend that you were saying otherwise. According to them, the decision wasn't made. There is going to be scrambling if somebody posts that you agree to a white peace when you haven't.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='11 February 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1265948004' post='2176474'] The fact remains your leader signed an agreement, and a veto of that signature does not apply to a war time surrender situation. This is something you cannot veto, you cannot take back. Once he definitively agrees, which he did, and puts his name on it, you have absolutely zero second chances to say "well gee wiz actually nm we did a veto and are back at war now". Now however you have two choices. Declare war offensively and break your surrender terms, and get everything that will be brought upon you because of that, or adhere to them and take up this situation internally with your leader. [/quote] I believe the charter would override any other document. Obviously it wouldn't be prudent for the leader to agree to something only to have it repealed by veto weeks or even days later. They followed their charter to the letter to my knowledge, and within a very reasonable amount of time. Whether this course of action affects future terms is irrelevant. A veto could definitely apply to this agreement. Perhaps Legion should have communicated that it could be vetoed, and likewise for the other side not getting a less ambiguous answer. I wouldn't expect other alliances to know our charter to the letter, but if a disagreement like this were to occur I'd hope that both sides have the respect and dignity to recognize mistakes were made and reconvene.