Jump to content

Benjamin Arouet

Members
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • AIM
    Tu160BlckJck

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Oedipe
  • Alliance Name
    Commonwealth of Sovereign Nations
  • Resource 1
    Water
  • Resource 2
    Spices
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    Oedipe

Recent Profile Visitors

176 profile views

Benjamin Arouet's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. They/you waited 6 months for $36 mil to come in? I'm never the first to advocate war, but that's just absurd. Roll hard, RnR, let no one abuse the patience of you or your allies again.
  2. [quote name='The AUT' date='03 April 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1270330675' post='2246837'] I hereby invoke the "Penkala will not make CSN attack you in retaliation" clause. [/quote] Yah, he isn't in a position to make that claim. When someone in CSN gets attacked, it's our concern, and if you didn't want it to be you should've checked with someone with authority to allow such a "duel" first. Edit: On the other hand, it looks like he is more forgiving than I.... Congrats on that, but don't do it again.
  3. Thanks for telling us how to run our alliance, I appreciate it. You were the only one controlling whether or not you attacked him, and if you hadn't done so you wouldn't be in this position. You should know well that attacking an aligned nation isn't okay, and unless Penkala is inclined to forgive you for this episode, we'll expect the same reps we would in any similar instance.
  4. To me this seems to be a rogue attack, and we'll be treating it as such. I understand peace has been declared, and we'll be in contact about reparations.
  5. Congrats guys, I see a few familiar faces from the war in government there, good luck to you in peace!
  6. Wooooooh boy, I thought you guys couldn't get worse than Harry, and there you go proving me wrong. Seriously though, congrats on the elections, quite the nice government you've got there.
  7. [quote name='jimbacher' date='24 February 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1267050442' post='2202105'] Not only that, but they are probably mostly in bill-lock, so how could they re-enter. A no re-entry clause is actually redundant at this point since most of NSO is in anarchy and probably bill-lock, so they counldn't declare wars anyways... [/quote] You guys are making quite the fine case to NSO for why it makes no sense not to agree to it, though I think we've moved somewhat beyond that particular issue.
  8. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1267047313' post='2202012'] If you will really 'never surrender' then you are driving your own alliance into the ground, and I have more sympathy for Polar. You're doing the victim complex thing that TPF made their own in Karma, but it sounds like you're not doing it for anyone, you'll keep doing it forever. Staying in the war for IRON is admirable, although you're not really much help to them any more, but at some point, if you want to see infra in your future, you're going to have to surrender. [/quote] That'd be true if they were staying in it for IRON, but Moldavi has already stated in this thread that they will accept peace independently of IRON, just without the stipulation of a surrender. They're just cutting off their nose to spite their face.
  9. [quote name='Tick1' date='24 February 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1267046134' post='2201975'] Anyone that doesn't offer white peace either wants to truly destroy his opponent or feels there is more to gain from whaling upon their enemy. If NSO was to re-enter the war after being given white peace, you then declare on them an impose stricter terms/reparations. CSN on the other hand feels they have more to gain from staying engaged with said alliance. [/quote] When this war ends on one front, we want it to stay ended. If NSO isn't willing to commit in writing to not coming back into the war, I see no reason to think that they wouldn't. If they aren't planning on re-entering, there's no reason not to commit to such, as signing the agreement doesn't physically constrain their action, it just helps demonstrate the need for stricter terms if they break their word. I don't see why you're singling out CSN, either... as I've said, no one in this war has offered terms except with that stipulation. Also, I see NSO wasn't even correct with its claims to have always offered white peace themselves... I'll admit I don't really follow them well enough to have assessed the validity of that claim myself, and I thank others for investigating it fully. I see no further reason for them to claim they deserve such a set of terms.
  10. [quote name='Anthony' date='24 February 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1267045395' post='2201962'] Actually no. NSO has never offered anything but a pure white peace. Don't go around thinking if the situation was reversed we'd be making wild demands. Edit: You know what, Lennox? You're in trouble... [/quote] I understand your argument, but it could apply only if you think about it in the absence of other alliances. If the situation was truly reversed, you'd be one alliance in a broader coalition doing a pretty decent job of beating us up, and I can't think of another alliance that wouldn't attach the term of not re-entering on either side of this conflict. In the immediate pursuit of peace, you have to negotiate in the world as it exists, not in the world as your alliance would run things. Also, I don't know of any wars that NSO has engaged in where they've ended up on the winning side against anyone but tiny alliances for whom offering the term of pure white peace would be relatively harmless.
  11. [quote name='BraveNewWorld' date='24 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1267043317' post='2201907'] If it's so minor, then why are Fark insisting upon it? Besides, I believe it is a beer review AND not re-entering the war in support of their allies who are still fighting. Something which I'm sure their opponents would not agree to. [/quote] I'm sure if those of us on the other side were losing the war, we would be forced to agree to such terms as a condition for our release from the war, at the very least. As a matter of fact, the relatively few alliances who have sought peace from the "SuperGrievances" (or whatever we're calling ourselves these days) side have had to agree to exactly that kind of term. I think the notion that NSO somehow deserves white peace simply because they say they do is an interesting fiction, especially considering their continuing displays of obnoxious bravado, etc. I'm ambivalent on the beer review thing personally, but I certainly don't think it's any insurmountable barrier to peace, and the deal offered to NSO is probably far better than they deserve based on the whole of their conduct. Mind you, this is a common feature of this war and not something I particularly object to, as anyone will tell you I am an advocate of relatively lighter surrender terms. (Also, off-topic: Nice to see you still among the living, BNW, you should get back to diplomattin' around our way sometime )
  12. [quote name='Jesse End' date='16 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266385128' post='2187162'] I don't think intention really has anything to do with whether the aid helps or not, but I am glad that NSO and NpO have stated that they understand our position while we continue sending reps to GOD. [/quote] Yah, there was a real danger of those guys not being understanding. I thought we were going to see NSO declare war on NPO for aiding their enemies. And before anyone asks, I'm totally serious. Edit: sp
  13. [quote name='Weirdgus' date='16 February 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1266377437' post='2186899'] I am so sorry that signatures of pacificans are unfit for you or CSN's in general standards, what will we ever do? [/quote] I mean, if the NPO members on the OWF would grow up and learn to live peacefully and play nice in a world they no longer control, that'd be just super. I'm not holding my breath, though.
×
×
  • Create New...