Schattenmann Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304300883' post='2703613'] You lost. I've never known losers that dictate their own terms. [/quote] You know damned well that's not what he meant by "that's what you get" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Jyrinx' timestamp='1304295396' post='2703531'] That was a really interesting read, thanks Schat. And I still don't understand how what CoJ did could be considered threatening your protectorate,... [/quote] Nor do I. I've seen nothing from the ODN to support this allegation and the logs that have been provided support CoJ's side of the story. That is, CoJ spoke to the protectorate to ensure they were aware that aiding ODN nations could be construed as assisting ODN's war effort. I did not see any threats, just a statement of the obvious. It appears, from what I have seen, that the ODN is repeating mantra to make it truth. I am, of course, open to new evidence from the ODN that supports their allegation.However, if it exists, I'm sure we'd have seen it by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) I too have read them. More to the point... I was there. I hope you actually read the complete logs not the out of order partial ones Schatt posted on the OWF. Peace negotiations with CoJ went like this basically... as i'm sure Schatt will agree if he is being honest. He came and asked ODN to accept peace with him since he had not been fighting with MK for a while. He was told that peace would be fine but he had to actually secure official peace with MK or we would not accept. He could not and showed no interest in trying and we left it at that. Fast forward a few weeks. Schatt comes and asks what ODN would want for terms once... sometime in the future... he has secured peace with the rest of the coalition. I told him that I would need to consult with the GA but here is what *I* personally was thinking... admitting defeat and a lulz term. We go back and forth and waste time for a while and then come to something that is agreeable to us. I specifically tell him I need to get the senates input and the above is just my suggestion not an official offer. I take it to the rest of ODN we have a discussion. Within 48 hours I go back to schatt, I tell him the GA disagreed with me and I was overruled. The lulz term was not needed but an apology was. I explained to him why it was needed. And since then ODN's terms for peace have not changed. Schatt was basically frustrated that I am not supreme overlord of ODN and could not force our membership to agree with my preliminary discussion with him and then threw a hissy fit and started posting TWIN threads. Incidentally, he also changed the time-line of negotiations in his TWIN thread, making it look like ODN had the discussion first and *then* I approached him and asked for a lulz term... as opposed to it being the other way around (and him approaching me). I assume he did that in order to try and paint me poorly. Edited May 2, 2011 by OsRavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1304297214' post='2703552'] Just stop posting. Not only do you make yourself look awful, but you make your alliance look bad too. [/quote] I find his posts amusing, so I disagree. NOMNOMNOM don't listen to the haters and keep posting as much as your heart desires, or you'll never be as famous as you could be. Also considering who declared on who, I think white peace all around would be appropriate for ending ODN's wars. Its not like any of those ODN declared on to assist MK have actually been at war with MK within recent history at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snibbmaster Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304300883' post='2703613'] You lost. I've never known losers that dictate their own terms. [/quote] And sadly Schatt you will continue to be in the losing position until you've signed a statement of surrender. I know you can't agree with me publicly (what with all these fans looking up to you) but the point remains, and it WILL happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckz3 Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304300883' post='2703613'] You lost. I've never known losers that dictate their own terms. [/quote] As I recall CnG and friends dictated a new age of White peace Last Great war. What happened to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cave runner Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1304280456' post='2703322'] newcomer scotch [/quote] scotch created his profile in ODN in October 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twizzler Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Duckz3' timestamp='1304301943' post='2703635'] As I recall CnG and friends dictated a new age of White peace Last Great war. What happened to that? [/quote] Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Balfour Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1304297706' post='2703560'] You are an ignorant liar. I have not spammed TFE about anything. Yawoo and HeroofTime had IRC convos with the leader of TFE in which no threats were issued, and we repeated our position about the aid in TFE's protection announcement. End of story. [/quote] When you tell our protectorate 'We consider tech dealing with the ODN and act of war', the implicit [i]threat[/i] is that 'if you don't stop tech dealing with the ODN, we will attack you'. When you threaten our protectorate, explicitly or implicitly, there are consequences. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304302251' post='2703637'] Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT. [/quote] I don't blame CoJ for refusing to apologise for something they did not do. That being "threatening" your protectorate. While, as victors, you have the power to impose any terms you wish, you cannot seriously be blaming CoJ for continuing the war when your terms force them to make a false confession. Then again, this is the new "golden age" of the Cyberverse so I would not be surprised if that is precisely what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckz3 Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304302251' post='2703637'] Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT. [/quote] I do recall that Os said that we had threatened TFE. Oo wait. We didnt, We told them what happens if you continue aiding an alliance at war. Now, You expected other apologies not just ones for spying, You expected them long before the spying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Louis Balfour' timestamp='1304302356' post='2703640'] When you tell our protectorate 'We consider tech dealing with the ODN and act of war', the implicit [i]threat[/i] is that 'if you don't stop tech dealing with the ODN, we will attack you'. When you threaten our protectorate, explicitly or implicitly, there are consequences. End of story. [/quote] So, stating the obvious is now an offence in war worthy of special punishment? It is commonly accepted in the Cyberverse that aiding nations at war is construed as aiding that nation's war efforts, or at least it has been to my knowledge having been genuinely threatened whenever one of my members sent aid to a nation that was at war, oblivious to the fact that was the case. How is telling the protectorate of yours this considered a threat? Oh wait, it isn't a threat now, it is an implied threat. Good grief. Edited May 2, 2011 by Tygaland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twizzler Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Duckz3' timestamp='1304302559' post='2703644'] I do recall that Os said that we had threatened TFE. Oo wait. We didnt, We told them what happens if you continue aiding an alliance at war. Now, You expected other apologies not just ones for spying, You expected them long before the spying. [/quote] Yeah we did. We expect apologies for your actions towards our applicants and our protectorate. I get that you believe you did nothing wrong. We feel otherwise. Look two posts above yours. Louis Balfour explains it quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304302251' post='2703637'] Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT. [/quote] Tell ya what I'll write out an apology myself for what acts we did do if ODN writes one themself. You first. Start by apologizing for the declaration of war and follow it up with all the acts of war your alliance has conducted against us right up to and including GAs. [b]Edit[/b] oh yeah and also toss in your saying not nice things to and about us Edited May 2, 2011 by Hyperbad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304302251' post='2703637'] Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT. [/quote] I'm gonna join the chorus and ask: Why CoJ need to apologize for using tools of war in a war? Or why should them apologize for communicate to TFE that aid ODN would be considered an act of war against CoJ? What will be your next request? CoJ will need to apologize for defending an ally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1304297983' post='2703570'] Oh, I should take the moral high ground? Gee. Shut up. If ODN doesn't want peace, then they want war. I tried to give them one, they wanted the other. Here we are. These idiots don't even understand that they aggressively attacked us. I think it's important for youngins like OsRavan to understand that when you attack people, things happen. It would be immoral of me not to help him in this regard. [/quote] This is hilarious. This series of threads is nothing more than you complaining about losing a war. Oddly enough, the victors dictate the peace terms. You're continually claiming that the ODN 'aggressively attacked' you and this somehow allows you to dictate the terms of peace to them? Regardless of what your coffee shop lawyers will tell you, the difference between a MDP and a oA clause is irrelevant when it comes to the final peace terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1304302492' post='2703642'] I don't blame CoJ for refusing to apologise for something they did not do. That being "threatening" your protectorate. While, as victors, you have the power to impose any terms you wish, you cannot seriously be blaming CoJ for continuing the war when your terms force them to make a false confession. Then again, this is the new "golden age" of the Cyberverse so I would not be surprised if that is precisely what you are saying.[/quote] Tygaland is correct. Yes, I said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1304305161' post='2703676'] This is hilarious. This series of threads is nothing more than you complaining about losing a war. Oddly enough, the victors dictate the peace terms. You're continually claiming that the ODN 'aggressively attacked' you and this somehow allows you to dictate the terms of peace to them? Regardless of what your coffee shop lawyers will tell you, the difference between a MDP and a oA clause is irrelevant when it comes to the final peace terms.[/quote] At some point it will hopefully occur to you that winning with magnanimity is superior to winning and sticking your thumb in someone's eye when it's over. Also, you cannot seriously saying there is no difference between a MDP and a oA clause, win or lose. Have you been taking treaty advise from Xiph? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 There must be a difference, otherwise why would Os lie about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1304305161' post='2703676'] This is hilarious. This series of threads is nothing more than you complaining about losing a war. Oddly enough, the victors dictate the peace terms. You're continually claiming that the ODN 'aggressively attacked' you and this somehow allows you to dictate the terms of peace to them? Regardless of what your coffee shop lawyers will tell you, the difference between a MDP and a oA clause is irrelevant when it comes to the final peace terms. [/quote] MDP= Mutual [b]defence[/b] pact Oa= optional [b]aggression[/b] Consult a dictionary for further assistance if needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1304306079' post='2703715'] There must be a difference, otherwise why would Os lie about it? [/quote] Yeah, i'm lying ;:that's sarcasm:: It cant be that we disagree over whether your deceleration of hostility was a dow (I say yes) or a recognition of an already existing war (so says you). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itseZe Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1304306131' post='2703717'] MDP= Mutual [b]defence[/b] pact Oa= optional [b]aggression[/b] Consult a dictionary for further assistance if needed. [/quote] And that would matter if we were asking him to apologize for what caused the war. Which we are not. We are asking for an apology for what he did during the war. And therefore Banksy is correct, the treaty with which we entered is irrelevant to the apology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='Duckz3' timestamp='1304280417' post='2703319'] [img]http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa148/Dff27/NewSSeS/cloverfield2.png[/img] [/quote] Protip: I'm the one who first discovered TFE, I'm the guy who went to Schattenmann to formulate a plan with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1304305881' post='2703709'] At some point it will hopefully occur to you that winning with magnanimity is superior to winning and sticking your thumb in someone's eye when it's over. Also, you cannot seriously saying there is no difference between a MDP and a oA clause, win or lose. Have you been taking treaty advise from Xiph? [/quote] [quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1304306131' post='2703717'] MDP= Mutual [b]defence[/b] pact Oa= optional [b]aggression[/b] Consult a dictionary for further assistance if needed. [/quote] Congratulations, they stand for different things. Once you have entered into a war, the method of entry, assuming you are the victor, is irrelevant to the peace terms. You might disagree with it, but there are no norms restricting the peace terms the victor can offer based on how they entered a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperbad Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 [quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1304306316' post='2703722'] Yeah, i'm lying ;:that's sarcasm:: It cant be that we disagree over whether your deceleration of hostility was a dow (I say yes) or a recognition of an already existing war (so says you). [/quote] You believe the Mushroom Kingdom hadn't initiated wars against us prior to the recognition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.