Individual Surrender Terms

[Delta1212]

[quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319558197' post='2832105']
well that is kind of circular way of wording it. Defeated is defeated and surrendered is surrendered. Two individual words. You can be defeated and never surrendered and just as easily surrendered without actually being defeated.





While similar in outcome of the verbs they are derived from they are distinctly different and I'll even accept that the differences may be just semantics but the difference to me is distinct.
[/quote]
Ok so:

To be defeated is to lose.

To surrender is to give up.

It is better to be defeated than to surrender.

If you surrender, you are not defeated.

[mrwuss]

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1319558526' post='2832109']
Ok so:

To be defeated is to lose.

To surrender is to give up.

It is better to be defeated than to surrender.

If you surrender, you are not defeated.
[/quote]


Regardless of the outcome Legion will still be worthless as a whole. A winning outcome means they just aren't in last place.


Roll Polar.

Edited October 25, 2011 by mrwuss

[Grendel]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1319558376' post='2832106']
So, you're saying that submitting to the authority of another alliance is not demoralizing, nor is ceasing resistance being overcome by adversity?
[/quote]

Can't answer that one with a definitive, there may be individuals [the passive types] that this is normal in their life so submitting could be anything but demoralizing. There is also the voluntary capitulation for some perceived future gain. Many many reasons for someone to capitulate/surrender that have nothing to do with being defeated, as defined by the individual. My goals and your goals are not always the same. Too much lumping "if this then that" in most communications here on the OWF, there is more grey then black and white in situations.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1319557395' post='2832095']
So you'd rather spinelessly give in to the whims of the enemy than fight for the alliance which has protected you and acted as a home? I really hope the leadership of your alliance gets to read these comments.
[/quote]
This line is the embodies everything that is wrong with the rationale behind these terms and only demonstrates the incongruence between what lulz alliances do for no reason and how they try to spin it for the public.

You, NG, and the various mindless o/ers supporting this situation all claim that SOS Brigade is a terrible alliance, its leader(s) are cowards who were in peacemode letting the alliance burn for their mistakes, incompetent, and brought this war down on SOS with their actions over the past few years. Then you also turn around and say that SOS Brigade has "protected" its members and been a home to them. If SOS Brigade is the cause of this war, then SOS Brigade cannot also be the protectors of their member states, rather, SOS is [i]the[/i] danger to its states, and it is right and proper that some of those states leave. We know that nations join alliances to leave the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom#The_Terror_of_Freedom"]state of nature[/url], which is violence and uncertainty, but if an alliance cannot maintain [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom#From_Freedom_to_Civilisation"]civilization[/url], those nations will leave. The aim of war on an alliance by another alliance is to remove the target's ability to maintain civilization and cause a diminishment of that alliance through loss of members, or disbandment altogether by total loss of members.

Non Grata's terms work against its own goals by making it more difficult for a nation to make the decision to leave SOS Brigade. In their mad dash to be edgy and shocking, they abandon sense, which is what we expect from an alliance which has no aim, no goal, no ambition, but which seeks nothing but the momentary satisfaction of raised eyebrows when they walk onto stage in a pointed metal bra. When they, or their allies or their fans, try to rationalize what has no rationale, the show just gets weird. So we come to the argument that "deserters must be punished" which may be true, but it is not the refugee camp that punishes deserters, it is the enemy to which a deserter defects which [i]rewards [/i]the deserter because the deserter has made his job easier and has affirmed his mission. Their is no logical argument to these terms because they defy logic, they are the product of an alliance which employs no logic, the application of logic to them is a farce and a bad decision, it is an indefensible position.

[mrwuss]

Ayn Rand is the currently employed speech writer within the CoJ compound.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Grendel' timestamp='1319558909' post='2832115']
My goals and your goals are not always the same. Too much lumping "if this then that" in most communications here on the OWF, there is more grey then black and white in situations.
[/quote]

I did nothing of the sort, I in no part used the word "if" or "then" in my comment. I actually directly quoted the definitions that you are directly quoting and asked you to differentiate between the two.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Leet Guy

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319559379' post='2832120']
This line is the embodies everything that is wrong with the rationale behind these terms and only demonstrates the incongruence between what lulz alliances do for no reason and how they try to spin it for the public.

You, NG, and the various mindless o/ers supporting this situation all claim that SOS Brigade is a terrible alliance, its leader(s) are cowards who were in peacemode letting the alliance burn for their mistakes, incompetent, and brought this war down on SOS with their actions over the past few years. Then you also turn around and say that SOS Brigade has "protected" its members and been a home to them. If SOS Brigade is the cause of this war, then SOS Brigade cannot also be the protectors of their member states, rather, SOS is [i]the[/i] danger to its states, and it is right and proper that some of those states leave. We know that nations join alliances to leave the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom#The_Terror_of_Freedom"]state of nature[/url], which is violence and uncertainty, but if an alliance cannot maintain [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom#From_Freedom_to_Civilisation"]civilization[/url], those nations will leave. The aim of war on an alliance by another alliance is to remove the target's ability to maintain civilization and cause a diminishment of that alliance through loss of members, or disbandment altogether by total loss of members.

Non Grata's terms work against its own goals by making it more difficult for a nation to make the decision to leave SOS Brigade. In their mad dash to be edgy and shocking, they abandon sense, which is what we expect from an alliance which has no aim, no goal, no ambition, but which seeks nothing but the momentary satisfaction of raised eyebrows when they walk onto stage in a pointed metal bra. When they, or their allies or their fans, try to rationalize what has no rationale, the show just gets weird. So we come to the argument that "deserters must be punished" which may be true, but it is not the refugee camp that punishes deserters, it is the enemy to which a deserter defects which [i]rewards [/i]the deserter because the deserter has made his job easier and has affirmed his mission. Their is no logical argument to these terms because they defy logic, they are the product of an alliance which employs no logic, the application of logic to them is a farce and a bad decision, it is an indefensible position.
[/quote]


HOLY !@#$!

Way to make a mountain out of a molehill man. Please, first, explain where I've called SOS's leaders "cowards" or claimed they were making the alliance "burn for their mistakes." Please also note that however incompetent an alliance is, they still for the most part have served their purpose of protecting their member nations from outside attacks, at least until NG decided to come around. I have not debated the semantics of who caused the war because, being honest, it's too gray of a subject for me to weigh in one way or the other. I think the leaders of SOS acted rather erroneously and Non Grata felt justified to attack them for their leader's actions. I pretty much refuse to read any of that Francoism !@#$%^&* you just cited because I fancy myself a Realist, which is a much more logical world view to adopt.

I think Non Grata is actually doing us a great community service in changing the way we view surrenders. The terms they've begun employing will make member nations think twice before really choosing which alliance they will join, and how committed they are to the membership, government, and ideals of their alliance. Furthermore, this will hopefully lead to individual surrenders to become an unnecessary thing of the past, as entire alliances will live and die together. If nations truly do not seek to be involved in conflict, there are [i]plenty[/i] of peaceful and non-aggressive alliances to choose from.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Leet Guy

[porksaber]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319559379' post='2832120']
This line is the embodies everything that is wrong with the rationale behind these terms and only demonstrates the incongruence between what lulz alliances do for no reason and how they try to spin it for the public.
[/quote]

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Bob Sanders material right here.

Brb - spinnin' it for the public.

Edited October 25, 2011 by porksaber

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319559379' post='2832120']
Non Grata's terms work against its own goals by making it more difficult for a nation to make the decision to leave SOS Brigade. In their mad dash to be edgy and shocking, they abandon sense, which is what we expect from an alliance which has no aim, no goal, no ambition, but which seeks nothing but the momentary satisfaction of raised eyebrows when they walk onto stage in a pointed metal bra. When they, or their allies or their fans, try to rationalize what has no rationale, the show just gets weird. So we come to the argument that "deserters must be punished" which may be true, but it is not the refugee camp that punishes deserters, it is the enemy to which a deserter defects which [i]rewards [/i]the deserter because the deserter has made his job easier and has affirmed his mission. Their is no logical argument to these terms because they defy logic, they are the product of an alliance which employs no logic, the application of logic to them is a farce and a bad decision, it is an indefensible position.
[/quote]


You assume to know our goals and then say we have none. You're just too dimwitted trying to be edgy yourself to miss our entire point.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319559379' post='2832120']
This line is the embodies everything that is wrong with the rationale behind these terms and only demonstrates the incongruence between what lulz alliances do for no reason and how they try to spin it for the public.

You, NG, and the various mindless o/ers supporting this situation all claim that SOS Brigade is a terrible alliance, its leader(s) are cowards who were in peacemode letting the alliance burn for their mistakes, incompetent, and brought this war down on SOS with their actions over the past few years. Then you also turn around and say that SOS Brigade has "protected" its members and been a home to them. If SOS Brigade is the cause of this war, then SOS Brigade cannot also be the protectors of their member states, rather, SOS is [i]the[/i] danger to its states, and it is right and proper that some of those states leave. We know that nations join alliances to leave the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom#The_Terror_of_Freedom"]state of nature[/url], which is violence and uncertainty, but if an alliance cannot maintain [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/The_Meaning_of_Freedom#From_Freedom_to_Civilisation"]civilization[/url], those nations will leave. The aim of war on an alliance by another alliance is to remove the target's ability to maintain civilization and cause a diminishment of that alliance through loss of members, or disbandment altogether by total loss of members.

Non Grata's terms work against its own goals by making it more difficult for a nation to make the decision to leave SOS Brigade. In their mad dash to be edgy and shocking, they abandon sense, which is what we expect from an alliance which has no aim, no goal, no ambition, but which seeks nothing but the momentary satisfaction of raised eyebrows when they walk onto stage in a pointed metal bra. When they, or their allies or their fans, try to rationalize what has no rationale, the show just gets weird. So we come to the argument that "deserters must be punished" which may be true, but it is not the refugee camp that punishes deserters, it is the enemy to which a deserter defects which [i]rewards [/i]the deserter because the deserter has made his job easier and has affirmed his mission. Their is no logical argument to these terms because they defy logic, they are the product of an alliance which employs no logic, the application of logic to them is a farce and a bad decision, it is an indefensible position.[/quote]

As someone didn't particularly have a problem with these terms, it wasn't so much that I approve of them per se as I simply would never accept them (I leave the field with my alliance mates or I don't). It's a bit like ask someone who never plans to go skydiving if what sort of parachute they prefer.

I understand your argument, but it implies a level of knowledge of NG's motives that I'm not entirely sure exists outside of NG. Until I see proof the contrary, I'm going to assume they simply don't like deserters, regardless of their opinion of the alliance they are fighting.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319559379' post='2832120']
This line is the embodies everything that is wrong with the rationale behind these terms and only demonstrates the incongruence between what lulz alliances do for no reason and how they try to spin it for the public....cannot maintain civilization and cause a diminishment of that alliance through loss of members, or disbandment altogether by total loss of members.
[/quote]
[quote name='porksaber' timestamp='1319569396' post='2832199']
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Bob Sanders material right here.

Brb - spinnin' it for the public.
[/quote]
This line is the embodies are belong to us. Embodies are belong to us cannot maintain civilization!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Steve Buscemi

[Stewie]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1319576082' post='2832238']
I understand your argument, but it implies a level of knowledge of NG's motives that I'm not entirely sure exists outside of NG. Until I see proof the contrary, I'm going to assume they simply don't like deserters, regardless of their opinion of the alliance they are fighting.
[/quote]

Hal, you've actually hit the nail on the head.


NG are more than an alliance, we are a family. Whether we were poison clan, hydra, ifok or SLCB we are all related and connected into the NG family. Breaking away from us when one of us bleeds to defend the whole hurts us. We don't like deserters, we fight together, we bleed together.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1319576972' post='2832246']
Hal, you've actually hit the nail on the head.


NG are more than an alliance, we are a family. Whether we were poison clan, hydra, ifok or SLCB we are all related and connected into the NG family. Breaking away from us when one of us bleeds to defend the whole hurts us. We don't like deserters, we fight together, [b]we bleed together[/b].
[/quote]
More like 1-2 in our alliance we haven't ran off bleeds together. I think you need to reread your anatomy book.

[ALFERALFER]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1319551878' post='2832068']
Perhaps SOS Brigade should start offering 3 million and 50 tech to everyone who deserts Non Grata
[/quote]

Even if they made it 3 Billion and 5000 tech each, they wouldn't get everyone to leave.

[magicninja]

The horror etc etc

[porksaber]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1319576972' post='2832246']
Hal, you've actually hit the nail on the head.

we fight together, we bleed together.
[/quote]

this line is the embodies of non grata. war, much like menstruation, is much better when you bring your friends along.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1319576972' post='2832246']
[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1319576082' post='2832238']
I understand your argument, but it implies a level of knowledge of NG's motives that I'm not entirely sure exists outside of NG. Until I see proof the contrary, I'm going to assume they simply don't like deserters, regardless of their opinion of the alliance they are fighting.
[/quote]
Hal, you've actually hit the nail on the head.
NG are more than an alliance, we are a family. Whether we were poison clan, hydra, ifok or SLCB we are all related and connected into the NG family. Breaking away from us when one of us bleeds to defend the whole hurts us. We don't like deserters, we fight together, we bleed together.
[/quote]
Again, none of which has anything to do with SOS Brigade's members, potential deserters/defectors, or the point of individual surrender terms (to encourage desertion) and the self-defeating nature of NG's twist. If you were punishing your own deserters, then what you said would apply, but we're not talking about NG family betrayal.

[Kalasin]

[quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1319405152' post='2831085']
Yes, initiating an aggressive conflict and then demanding that the defenders then pay you reparations for the war fits the exact definition of extortion.
[/quote]

Your alliance being totally unfamiliar with such practices of course.

[porksaber]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319584169' post='2832298']
Again, none of which has anything to do with SOS Brigade's members, potential deserters/defectors, or the point of individual surrender terms (to encourage desertion) and the self-defeating nature of NG's twist. If you were punishing your own deserters, then what you said would apply, but we're not talking about NG family betrayal.
[/quote]

You can put whatever spin you want on it, but you're not hearing what Stewie is saying. Treating the enemy as you would expect your own members to be treated is the embodiment of living your own politics, and this is something that is sorely lacking these days. There's absolutely nothing self-defeating or not clearly thought through at work here. In fact, as King Xander stated, this policy was conceived during the UPN conflict.

Edit: For what it's worth, there is a mutual consensus among us members. If we don't like this policy, or don't agree with it, we're welcome to go join Invicta.

Edited October 25, 2011 by porksaber

[Buzz Lightyear]

There's a solution to all of this for all u !@#$%*ers and whiners. Don't wanna pay up, don't leave ur alliance midwar. If u don't want ppl in ur alliance to pay up to us (or someone else) u better make sure u have members that stick with u til the end of the war and if u question their loyalty get rid of them now.
And if you feel that strongly about it, do like Polar did against \m/ and hit us. Otherwise, sit back and watch the show

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1319584169' post='2832298']
Again, none of which has anything to do with SOS Brigade's members, potential deserters/defectors, or the point of individual surrender terms (to encourage desertion) and the self-defeating nature of NG's twist. If you were punishing your own deserters, then what you said would apply, but we're not talking about NG family betrayal.
[/quote]

Clearly we're doing ourselves harm here by not encouraging deserters, so why should you care?

[EViL0nE]

I just can't be outraged by these terms. Deserters deserve no respect and no fair treatment.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Errr...okay. Maybe they just want out of a war you declared on them which their incompetent leader seems to be reluctant to stop happening?

I don't care either way, just offering an alternate perspective.

[King Wally]

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1319591191' post='2832349']
I just can't be outraged by these terms. Deserters deserve no respect and no fair treatment.
[/quote]

POW camps arent meant to be holiday resorts... I'm cool with this. Come back when you have them forming naked human pyramids and I'll be offended.

[Thrash]

[quote name='porksaber' timestamp='1319585152' post='2832306']
Edit: For what it's worth, there is a mutual consensus among us members. If we don't like this policy, or don't agree with it, we're welcome to go join Invicta.
[/quote]

And pray tell, how does this conversation involve us?