Official announcement from the Legion

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1320140777' post='2836372']
Not that you deserve a response, but I'm referring to NSO's very active role in Tetris' part in this whole affair.

We can all pretend that didn't happen either, just like you not being humbled/defeated by Legion either.
[/quote]
lol, it doesn't matter what you're referring to, since we didn't aggressively attack them. Sorry to burst your bubble!

[Tygaland]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320141379' post='2836374']
lol, it doesn't matter what you're referring to, since we didn't aggressively attack them. Sorry to burst your bubble!
[/quote]

So, only alliances that go in aggressively (pre-emptive strike or attack via an oA?) have to admit defeat when they lose a war? Going in via a defensive clause regardless of circumstance absolves you from any requirement to concede defeat in a war you have lost?

This is certainly a new paradigm.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320142513' post='2836375']
So, only alliances that go in aggressively (pre-emptive strike or attack via an oA?) have to admit defeat when they lose a war? Going in via a defensive clause regardless of circumstance absolves you from any requirement to concede defeat in a war you have lost?

This is certainly a new paradigm.
[/quote]
Where did I say any of that Tyga? Where was I even talking about concession of defeat? I was simply responding to iyiyth's characterization of the situation. Surely you're better than this.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320142697' post='2836376']
Where did I say any of that Tyga? Where was I even talking about concession of defeat? I was simply responding to iyiyth's characterization of the situation. Surely you're better than this.
[/quote]

Well, the whole sticking point is the concession of defeat. People seem to be squabbling over whether NSO went in aggressively (by their complicity with Tetris in the screenshot baiting) or defensively (in defense of Tetris after Legion declared war on them) when it doesn't seem to be relevant to the situation at all. Some in NSO and Ragnarok seem to think that NSO being required to concede defeat in a war they are losing is a great travesty of justice and that, because the NSO went in to defend Tetris via their treaty, they are somehow not required to concede defeat. I'm just wondering when that precedent came into being as someone who has done their fair share of admitting defeat over the years.

But, by all means, debate the irrelevant until the sun sets in the east. I'll just sit over here...

[Jgoods45]

Never surrender NSO!

Edited November 1, 2011 by Jgoods45

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320143758' post='2836379']
Well, the whole sticking point is the concession of defeat. People seem to be squabbling over whether NSO went in aggressively (by their complicity with Tetris in the screenshot baiting) or defensively (in defense of Tetris after Legion declared war on them) when it doesn't seem to be relevant to the situation at all. Some in NSO and Ragnarok seem to think that NSO being required to concede defeat in a war they are losing is a great travesty of justice and that, because the NSO went in to defend Tetris via their treaty, they are somehow not required to concede defeat. I'm just wondering when that precedent came into being as someone who has done their fair share of admitting defeat over the years.

But, by all means, debate the irrelevant until the sun sets in the east. I'll just sit over here...
[/quote]
That's fine, but that's not what I was talking about, is it. You are linking two topics which I deliberately kept distinct. I was objecting to the continued characterization of our entry as an aggressive attack, which it isn't no matter how you spin it. I was not arguing about whether we would give a concession, or whether it is warranted, or anything you're trying to attribute to me. So quoting me and attempting to paint me as trying to establish some new precedent is nonsensical. I haven't been following the debate regarding the concession but I doubt it all hinges on the circumstances of our entry like you are trying to suggest.

If you don't want to debate the irrelevant, perhaps you shouldn't randomly start an argument with me that is completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320144825' post='2836384']
That's fine, but that's not what I was talking about, is it. You are linking two topics which I deliberately kept distinct. I was objecting to the continued characterization of our entry as an aggressive attack, which it isn't no matter how you spin it. I was not arguing about whether we would give a concession, or whether it is warranted, or anything you're trying to attribute to me. So quoting me and attempting to paint me as trying to establish some new precedent is nonsensical. I haven't been following the debate regarding the concession but I doubt it all hinges on the circumstances of our entry like you are trying to suggest.
[/quote]

Actually, most of the protesting against the concession have cited how NSO entered the war as the reason why it should not be requested of them. I haven't seen any other reason offered other than Heft and RV denying the war is going south for them at the moment which contradicts the comments of others from the NSO.

[quote]
If you don't want to debate the irrelevant, perhaps you shouldn't randomly start an argument with me that is completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
[/quote]

Forgive me, the person you were replying to was discussing precisely what I continued to talk about. I didn't realise you took one small, irrelevant part of what he said to create a new mini argument. As I said, I'll be sitting over here, let me know when you are done.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320145205' post='2836386']
Actually, most of the protesting against the concession have cited how NSO entered the war as the reason why it should not be requested of them. I haven't seen any other reason offered other than Heft and RV denying the war is going south for them at the moment which contradicts the comments of others from the NSO.[/quote]
Hmm. Well like I said I haven't been following the argument, but I guess people tend to argue what seems logical to them. Personally I'd be happy with saying that we're not going to surrender because we're NSO and $%&@ you. I guess that's why no-one ever lets me into high gov.

[quote]Forgive me, the person you were replying to was discussing precisely what I continued to talk about. I didn't realise you took one small, irrelevant part of what he said to create a new mini argument. As I said, I'll be sitting over here, let me know when you are done.
[/quote]
So you didn't read my posts, or...? Because it should have been pretty clear what I was talking about. Yes, I responded to a small part of his post, I wasn't aware we had to offer word by word critiques these days. I didn't really care what he was saying, as I said before I was responding solely to his characterization of our entry as an aggressive attack. Sorry if that didn't fit your agenda of shoehorning references to new precedents into the discussion.

[Tygaland]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320146663' post='2836393']
So you didn't read my posts, or...? Because it should have been pretty clear what I was talking about. Yes, I responded to a small part of his post, I wasn't aware we had to offer word by word critiques these days. I didn't really care what he was saying, as I said before I was responding solely to his characterization of our entry as an aggressive attack. Sorry if that didn't fit your agenda of shoehorning references to new precedents into the discussion.
[/quote]

I read your posts. I took them in the context of the discussion that was taking place, not as a stand alone comment on a unimportant side-issue.

The precedent had already been "shoehorned" in much earlier, I was merely referring to it in relation to your infatuation with deciding whether NSO was an aggressor or a defender with respect to the greater argument taking place. That greater argument being that the NSO should be exempt from conceding defeat because they entered the war in defence of Tetris, according to some in NSO and Ragnarok from my observations.

If NSO don't want to concede defeat then that is fine by me, it is their choice to make. But, to argue that Legion are being unreasonable or unnecessarily vindictive in requesting it is nonsense regardless of how NSO entered the war. From my perspective and from the evidence presented, both Tetris and NSO have acted aggressively towards Legion for some time so they are hard-pressed to portray themselves as victims in this conflict. This makes NSO and Tetris' situation different to NsO, IAA and BTA. While all alliances (NSO, Tetris, NsO, BTA and IAA went to war with Legion only two of those alliances, to my knowledge have made it their business to harrass, provoke and ridicule Legion for a long period of time. So, with that in mind, I can understand why Legion want Tetris and NSO to concede defeat. I do realise the PR value of trying to paint yourselves as victims of Legion's unreasonableness but it does puzzle me that an alliance that does not care about PR would be so determined to make that perception stick. Especially when it is completely untrue.

NSO and Tetris set out some time ago to bait Legion into a war. Whether that war was to be the one we have now with a small number of alliances involved or whether it was supposed to escalate into something else doesn't matter. You got the war you wanted so to try and claim you are an innocent party drawn in only by a defensive treaty is nonsense. To me, this is as much NSO's baby as it is Tetris' baby. All just my opinion, of course.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1320134560' post='2836347']
[b]Legion is trying hard to turn this from what most would view as a good, hard fought victory by just giving straight up white peace now into a horrific nightmarish defeat for itself and their allies[/b] if they keep up their line of making NSO admit defeat.....it's almost painful to watch.

Get while the getting is good Legion. There is nowhere to go but down from here...trust me. You will do one of two things if you try to stay this course...you will eventually give the white peace and then you will look like you caved...or... NSO's allies will eventually join ending all hope of any kind of victory for you. You need to realize this now because when it all does go down no one will have any sympathy for you because quite frankly most will view it as you having brought it upon yourselves.
[/quote]

Indeed it is ... I've been watching this go on all night and keeping quiet. Admin knows we've got enough people posting horribly right now. Some keep going on about Legion's great terms, and their generosity and good will (with rare occasions like yours pointing out 'reality' as is also being tossed frequently) .. We should just take this 'white peace' from Legion and move on .. We should offer words of wrongdoing etc etc and the great sleeping giant will be merciful blah blah blah ..

[spoiler][quote]Oct 27 23:35:02 <Lowgain> Well, we would be willing to offer an admission of wrong doing or something.
[b]Oct 27 23:35:36 <killer04|Legion|MoD> We are not looking for any sort of admission of wrong doing, apology, or what ever you want to call it.[/b]
Oct 27 23:35:45 <Randalla[Apparatus]> why not?
Oct 27 23:35:51 <killer04|Legion|MoD> Just something like "Tetris surrenders to The Legion"
Oct 27 23:36:04 <Ernie[AppD]> what does that accomplish?
Oct 27 23:36:06 <youwish959> And what purpose does that serve?
Oct 27 23:36:38 <killer04|Legion|MoD> They were the ones that leaked the information, they offered things before the war started but never delievered or got in contact with us again with an update
Oct 27 23:37:07 <youwish959> Would they have been adequate prior to the war?
Oct 27 23:37:16 <BobIlyani> and what does a surrender accomplish that an admission of wrongdoing does not, in that case?
Oct 27 23:37:43 <Randalla[Apparatus]> You would rather have it said, "We surrender" instead of, "we posted questionable material, we're sorry"?
Oct 27 23:38:09 <killer04|Legion|MoD> I cant really say whether it would have been adequate prior, I know that we were waiting to hear back from them and waiting to see the things happened that they offered[/quote]

[quote]Oct 27 23:42:02 <Randalla[Apparatus]> [b]Tetris representative has offered to post an apology[/b], if I understood him correctly. That to me is a step from them.
Oct 27 23:42:16 <Heft> It is difficult to have a discussion if you refuse to say anything other than "surrender'
Oct 27 23:42:31 <killer04|Legion|MoD> A step that was offered before the war started, but was never given
Oct 27 23:43:12 <MaximillianThorton> dajobo, why is it not a stalemate? could i please have some stats, if it's not too much trouble?
[b]Oct 27 23:43:20 <youwish959> <killer04|Legion|MoD> A step that was offered before the war started, but was never given <<< Did you ever attempt to get in touch with Tetris?
Oct 27 23:43:39 <killer04|Legion|MoD> Good night everyone[/b]
Oct 27 23:43:43 <Heft> I'd rather avoid going down the rabbit hole of competing statistics
Oct 27 23:43:48 <Dajobo|NpO|> Max I don't have time to hunt stats
Oct 27 23:44:04 <Heft> killer04|Legion|MoD, did you come here to talk or not?
Oct 27 23:44:28 <MaximillianThorton> alright, fine by me. just thought i'd get a feel for this
{Legion Representative walks out, Dajobo continues for a little longer}
[b]Oct 27 23:44:39 <killer04|Legion|MoD> Our stance still has not chaned, and thats the end of it for now[/b]
Oct 27 23:44:42 <-- killer04|Legion|MoD (killer0404@coldfront-F5A44627.tx.res.rr.com) has left #paintedclay[/quote]

[quote]Oct 30 19:33:55 <Heft> So a peace that mentions neither surrender nor white peace?
Oct 30 19:34:12 <Alexander[Proconsul]> correct it would state a conditional peace.
Oct 30 19:34:18 <Heft> What is a conditional peace?
Oct 30 19:35:34 <Alexander[Proconsul]> just peace with conditions, ie. NSO does hereby accept the offer of Conditional Peace from the Legion and agrees to leave the field of battle.
Oct 30 19:36:22 <Alexander[Proconsul]> most of my terms are from geopolotical/NATO roots so if I say something that comes off weird or has very different CN meanings let me know.
Oct 30 19:37:58 <Heft> How about simply "The NSO and Legion agree to exit the field of battle"?
Oct 30 19:38:15 <Alexander[Proconsul]> thats the difference.. that white peace.
Oct 30 19:39:19 <Heft> I suppose
Oct 30 19:40:09 <Alexander[Proconsul]> One reads as a joint agreement one does not.
Oct 30 19:40:20 <Heft> Yes
Oct 30 19:42:01 <Heft> A joint agreement would be appropriate, in our view.
Oct 30 19:42:16 <Alexander[Proconsul]> not in ours though[/quote][/spoiler]


They haven't earned enough of a victory to stand over top of us and piss on us without a foot to come up the side of their head. There's still plenty of fight in us, we are not defeated. Pride be damned, we just won't lie to 'save our skin'. We won't admit defeat when we aren't truly defeated.




Edit: Precious feelings

Edited November 1, 2011 by Rayvon

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320149068' post='2836399']
I read your posts. I took them in the context of the discussion that was taking place, not as a stand alone comment on a unimportant side-issue.

The precedent had already been "shoehorned" in much earlier, I was merely referring to it in relation to your infatuation with deciding whether NSO was an aggressor or a defender with respect to the greater argument taking place. That greater argument being that the NSO should be exempt from conceding defeat because they entered the war in defence of Tetris, according to some in NSO and Ragnarok from my observations.

If NSO don't want to concede defeat then that is fine by me, it is their choice to make. But, to argue that Legion are being unreasonable or unnecessarily vindictive in requesting it is nonsense regardless of how NSO entered the war. From my perspective and from the evidence presented, both Tetris and NSO have acted aggressively towards Legion for some time so they are hard-pressed to portray themselves as victims in this conflict. This makes NSO and Tetris' situation different to NsO, IAA and BTA. While all alliances (NSO, Tetris, NsO, BTA and IAA went to war with Legion only two of those alliances, to my knowledge have made it their business to harrass, provoke and ridicule Legion for a long period of time. So, with that in mind, I can understand why Legion want Tetris and NSO to concede defeat. I do realise the PR value of trying to paint yourselves as victims of Legion's unreasonableness but it does puzzle me that an alliance that does not care about PR would be so determined to make that perception stick. Especially when it is completely untrue.

NSO and Tetris set out some time ago to bait Legion into a war. Whether that war was to be the one we have now with a small number of alliances involved or whether it was supposed to escalate into something else doesn't matter. You got the war you wanted so to try and claim you are an innocent party drawn in only by a defensive treaty is nonsense. To me, this is as much NSO's baby as it is Tetris' baby. All just my opinion, of course.
[/quote]
Perhaps you should read what is written, not just what you want to see.

And I've hardly posted for days, so trying to construe any of this as my infatuation is laughable at best. I made the point because people seem to have faulty memories, or at least conveniently selective ones. Because while we posted the spy reports months ago, this war ostensibly isn't about punishing us, something a lot of the OWF (and funnily enough some Legionnaires too) seem to have forgotten. In the context of this war, we are defending an ally from an alliance who decided to declare war for distribution of screenshots. I don't remember anything about NSO in the Legion DoW, so I find it odd that so many support drawing on events unrelated to the war to justify adding conditions to a peace agreement. It isn't about how we entered in itself, it's about the stated purpose for the war.

As for the rest, that's largely all a matter of interpretation. Though to say we and Tetris were 'behaving aggressively for some time' is a pretty crude implication to make. You can argue that the specific events, the posting of the spy reports and the posting of the screenshots, were worthy of war but I fail to see how they were 'aggressive'. And since most of that whole thing was a simple posting war between us and Legion, I hardly think that lives up to your characterization of continued aggressive behaviour. I also think you're drawing a long bow when you say that we and Tetris have been working to draw Legion into a war. If you remember, the feud all started when Legion decided to threaten us over their allegation of Varianz spying on them, which lead to us posting the spy reports. The taunts about them not attacking us then were a direct reaction to their previous threats, not some plan to bait them into getting rolled. And I would assume Tetris posted their screenshots because they thought it would be funny. Hardly a grand plan to draw them into a war, but I can understand how it favours you to present it as such, since it adds some legitimacy to their current stance.

The war is now our baby as much as Tetris's in the sense we're in it together for better or worse, but according to Legion and their DoW, it's a Tetris-Legion affair.

[WarriorConcept]

Alexander needs to brush up on his CN terminology/history, going from those logs.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1320154400' post='2836425']
Alexander needs to brush up on his CN terminology/history, going from those logs.
[/quote]

He's having this problem everywhere.

[Banedon]

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1320139024' post='2836367']
...I know NSO very well having been allies and talking to them a lot on a personal level. They are never going to cop to Legion's simple demands regardless of how true it is now or eventually probably will be if things stayed as they are. Why? They just will never give Legion the satisfaction. That is how they roll..[/quote]

From what I've read on the boards and heard from the negotiation room, Tetris is ready to end this. They've taken their punishment, they've admitted their mistakes, and they are ready to move on. They deserve better then this.

If the Sith don't want to surrender that's their issue, but it's killing Tetris. That single, simple term isn't going to go away. Legion isn't going to give NSO the opportunity to somehow spin this war as a victory. NSO will admit defeat before the fighting is over, simple as that. Legion will keep pounding on the Sith until they either acknowledge reality and admit defeat, or until the Sith evaporate into nothing. If that means months of war, so be it.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1320122534' post='2836265']
Stuarts just in there, you should ignore him as always. That second log was for world conquerer. The contest set by Mr. Sykes was to find two government members stating it and I did with about 2 seconds of work.
[/quote]

I know that you think you are clever. It is too bad that you are not. First off, Chron, to my knowledge isnt gov. He is essentially, if I read their charter properly, a DMOFA. That makes him roughly as powerful within NSO as a toothless cheetah on the African Savannah. Secondly, WC's one line in that log was simply asking if a challenge had been accepted. I saw nobody in NSO gov, in your logs, that sets alliance policy, say that NSO could defeat Legion 1v1. I saw 1 member(my challenge was 10, get looking for 9 more, I wont even bother to point out to you the the challenge was what is being said on the OWF by everyone, since, Im sure the average CNer doesnt have access to your logs.) You can feel free to submit yet another attempt when you find something of substance.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Rush Sykes

[TehChron]

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1320145205' post='2836386']
Actually, most of the protesting against the concession have cited how NSO entered the war as the reason why it should not be requested of them. I haven't seen any other reason offered other than Heft and RV denying the war is going south for them at the moment which contradicts the comments of others from the NSO.[/quote]What a terribly short memory you have.

I've said, repeatedly, that screw the Legion, we won't be surrendering to them, simply because we refuse to when we're far from defeated. But as I said before, when you let the treaty web decide your opinions for you, it isn't too surprising that intellectual dishonesty is your modus operandi.

Now then, we may be in a disadvantageous position at present (as expected, given the stats), but we're nowhere near down for the count. If you're going to portray what Heft has said as some kind of repudiation of reality, I really must ask that you get your eyes checked, or to quit pulling nonsense out of thin air.

[quote]Forgive me, the person you were replying to was discussing precisely what I continued to talk about. I didn't realise you took one small, irrelevant part of what he said to create a new mini argument. As I said, I'll be sitting over here, let me know when you are done.
[/quote]
How funny, when he pointed out that the one continuing an irrelevant tangent was yourself. But I suppose that it's not surprising that your perspective is mistaken, or flawed, or deliberately obtuse.

Edited November 1, 2011 by TehChron

[the rebel]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1320160028' post='2836466']
What a terribly short memory you have.

I've said, repeatedly, that screw the Legion, we won't be surrendering to them, simply because [b]we refuse to when we're far from defeated[/b]. But as I said before, when you let the treaty web decide your opinions for you, it isn't too surprising that intellectual dishonesty is your modus operandi.[/quote]

Cool, though from whats been said Tetris is ready to leave so be a man NSO and give them the blessing to since you want to continue rather than keeping them on the cross with you.

[TehChron]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1320162564' post='2836478']
Cool, though from whats been said Tetris is ready to leave so be a man NSO and give them the blessing to since you want to continue rather than keeping them on the cross with you.
[/quote]
If Tetris is ready to leave, then let them. I have no issue with them peacing out.

All that'll be left is an aggressive war being fought against the Sith by the Legion. No need to make it a packaged deal.

[Timeline]

53 pages of blah blah blah blah............. NSO will not admit they have lost simply due to the [color="#FF0000"]number of allies they have ready to [size="5"]WIN[/size] this war for them.[/color]

Now we can spend the next week talking about right or wrong but something that has been true from the start of any war within this world, MIGHT = RIGHT, sure karma was meant to have changed all that but who are we kidding it simply put new powers at the helm.

NSO has lost this battle that is clear, but they have the allies to win this war = MIGHT = RIGHT

Edited November 1, 2011 by Timeline

[Banedon]

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1320164019' post='2836490']
...All that'll be left is an aggressive war being fought against the Sith by the Legion...[/quote]

We declared on Tetris, after they posted spied screenshots of private sections of our forums. NSO declared on Legion, remember?

The only thing keeping the Sith at war with the Legion is your own pride and arrogance.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1320165222' post='2836492']
We declared on Tetris, after they posted spied screenshots of private sections of our forums. NSO declared on Legion, remember?

The only thing keeping the Sith at war with the Legion is your own pride and arrogance.
[/quote]
We declared in defense of our ally, thus putting us on the defensive side.

And why should we give you anything?

[the rebel]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320166127' post='2836498']
[b]We declared in defense of our ally, thus putting us on the defensive side.[/b][/quote]

Declaring war without the justification of self-defense is a war of aggression.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1320166553' post='2836502']
Declaring war without the justification of self-defense is a war of aggression.
[/quote]
...

When has that ever been the case in this realm?

[TehChron]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1320166553' post='2836502']
Declaring war without the justification of self-defense is a war of aggression.
[/quote]
Defending an ally in honor of a treaty has always been considered to be an act of military defense.

Too bad for your semantics argument, I guess. Oh well.

[the rebel]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' timestamp='1320167264' post='2836513']
...

When has that ever been the case in this realm?[/quote]

Declaring war on another alliance for whatever the reason has always been viewed as an aggressive action on this planet. So I have no idea why you're trying to say your in a defensive war since no one has declared on you

[quote name='TehChron' timestamp='1320167482' post='2836515']
Defending an ally in honor of a treaty has always been considered to be an [b]act of military defense[/b].

Too bad for your semantics argument, I guess. Oh well.[/quote]

If that was the case then no global wars would have occured ever due to in your eyes MDP's only work at the start of the conflict.

Edited November 1, 2011 by the rebel