Jump to content

Benjamin Arouet

Members
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Benjamin Arouet

  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.
  14. [quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1266376244' post='2186824'] Have you read the OP? yes we are living up to our word. We expect GOD to do the same. Some people [/quote] All I see is a trail of unnecessary public whining starting with the OP and continuing some 20-odd pages. There was never any particular reason for this spectacle, it's just one drawn out and unwarranted shot at GOD. As has already been stated, you guys should just be happy that the people you agreed to an instrument of surrender with are far more tolerant of such juvenile antics than NPO ever would've been.
  15. [quote name='TrotskysRevenge' date='16 February 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1266375847' post='2186793'] Right. No one would blame the NPO. The NPO has been, and always will be, blamed for almost everything that happens on Planet Bob. If this announcement had not been made, then a thread would have been started by someone on how we violated terms by committing an act of war. As has been said before, the NPO is damned if they do and damned if they don't. [/quote] I wonder how that came to be.... Forgive me for my lack of sympathy. Regardless, NPO knows very well that no one on the TOP/IRON side of this is likely to regard NPO fulfilling its terms as an act of war, making this nothing more than a gigantic BAWWWWW session. We get the point, go away and live up to your word.
  16. [quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 08:56 PM' timestamp='1266375412' post='2186772'] I dont believe we have any problems with FOK, as you have suspended rep payment during a war, so it is only fair if we consider rogue protection to be suspended from you guys as well due to you being busy in a war. But in GOD's case they want the reps mid war causing us to commit a war act against NpO etc while not providing the protection in return. [/quote] If you weren't prepared to deliver reps if there was a war going on, maybe you shouldn't have agreed to terms without an exception for such an eventuality. This level of whining is really ridiculous from an alliance of NPO's historical stature.
  17. Well, I knew this was coming but it's still deeply disappointing to see. Thanks for the experience, Angelite, it was a fun ride with you while it lasted. Also: We'll be protecting anyone legitimately on the Angelite AA for 30 days as they get things sorted, so raid at your own peril.
  18. Good luck STA, we know what you guys are capable of sans-communications system failures, no need to defend it.
  19. [quote name='Masterfod' date='09 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1265695454' post='2170103'] Oh we have the same amount of >45k nations. Check for yourself. We just killed yours first. You can draw as many pictures as you want, but anyone can verify my claims by simply looking at the alliance stats. Of course, there's nothing with allies wanting to help. Maybe the influx of new wars will turn the tide in your favour? /me checks the war screen ... maybe the tide turns tomorrow? [/quote] When we get done playing with the other two alliances we're currently heavily engaged with, we'd be happy to accept your invitation to the prom wholeheartedly, until such a time, we're allowing our friends to have a dance or two. In other news: This is a sexy announcement from a pair of sexy alliances. Thanks guys!
  20. [quote name='Shellhound' date='08 February 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1265669826' post='2169243'] so much talk from the alliance who's NS chart looks like a cliff. Yes it was a blitz, but what happened to your counter attack? [/quote] So much talk from the alliance who has less than half as many wars per nation compared to us. Don't worry, we'll get to you guys, but you took a spot at the back of the line in terms of our offensive war slots.
  21. [quote name='LiquidMercury' date='06 February 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1265482949' post='2164873'] I set out in my mind to make things like horrible terms being given out a thing of the past, disbandment abhorred against, a general sense of fun for all, and a way to make every action not born out of hate (yes I still get messages telling me to die and have seen others as well). I wanted a world where a small alliance could indeed mean something and it wasn't always a world of curbstomps. This had the possibility that last one, but instead politics have degenerated to a point where there is very little modicum of respect, control, or politics other then o/, spam, shared channel, treaty, opportunism. Essentially I went out to stand against all the heinous things that NPO and others had done, but we're all full circle now only without the interesting debate and discussion. [/quote] Erm.... As far as I can tell, most of those things are a reality, or at least far moreso than they were when NPO ruled the roost. Why the complaints?
  22. [quote name='NoFish' date='01 February 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1265050942' post='2150835'] Um. What? I think it's more "TOP has a weirdly distributed NS, we should get all our friends' 100k NS nations to hit them instead of having those nations sit around and do nothing." Also what is this "might upper tier" of IRON you're talking about? I see 14 nations over 80k NS. Shall we start fearing the might upper tier of CSN, too? [/quote] You most certainly should, otherwise they might get their feelings hurt and go rogue on Londo or something. (again)
  23. Thanks, but most of us are more than familiar with being on the receiving end of far worse odds than NSO has faced, and we all have every bit of respect for the fighting ability of STA. We'll see how things go, but I'm not sure how it's supposed to quiet us or what apparent loudness needed to be addressed in the first place.
×
×
  • Create New...