Moose Hole Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 It should be at least 100. We are getting a ton of tech from this tech raid, and if we only have to pay 50 tech per day, it's more economically advantageous to keep the war going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326475107' post='2898836'] I'm finding it difficult to argue with this. [/quote] This is why I should have been an evil dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1326475096' post='2898835'] You cannot possibly be this dense. An opportunity to stop bs was missed. That was/is continues to be the point of my post. This war will end with a white peace and some fun by the parties involved. But I very much see this situation used in the future to justify pushing harsh reps on someone. I have no issues with them jumping in and declaring on us. You have assumed incorrectly there isn't enjoyment in this war, you are incorrect. As for my alliance being hit more... um yeah lets do that. Not a place we haven't been before. I know it is hard for people to believe there is any sincerity or care from the NPO for the community at large... that is your failing not mine. I actually do care. There was no roadblock, there was no need for heavy handed anything. Adding that for clarity. You really want to go this route Myth? [/quote] I don't know why I would be dense, I'm opaque, but generally humans are made out of water. At least on this planet. I completely understand your frustration and sentiment for why you might have that sort of opinion or feel a certain way. Hell, my alliance is in a situation not dissimilar but not as exaggerated. There are, however, very few reasons why I could see a leader of an alliance in a situation not dissimilar to yours would make such a post in World Affairs and attempt to castigate your current opponents for their decision to continue onwards with war. One, you want to put pressure on them with a subtle threat that should things continue you may very well be inclined to add reperations or add pressure in hopes of garnering sympathy from other alliances that those remaining in conflict may be allied to. Highly unlikely on the latter, but still possible.. Two, your alliance.and/or yourself are simply frustrated with the events that have happened and the situation your current alliance is currently in. (Which is where I've emphasized and you've accepted was in fact partly your own doing.) and this is your way of blowing off steam, and I would think that this would not be the proper avenue. To take your argument at face value is another story entirely, because one could simply say that Fark, Fan et al are having a blast in their current situation (and I don't think that would be too much of a stretch,) and thus now we have a conflict where we enter a brave new-era and two parties willingly enter a war but because one believes it's time to move on and the other doesn't there is an air of dissatisfaction and maybe even hate towards said parties because they are playing exactly as this new brave world was supposed to allow, and thus the argument falls in upon itself. It really just boils down to my thought being my belief that rationally this post wasn't a good idea, even if well intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Moose Hole' timestamp='1326476168' post='2898850'] It should be at least 100. We are getting a ton of tech from this tech raid, and if we only have to pay 50 tech per day, it's more economically advantageous to keep the war going. [/quote] I want some of that beer you are drinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Boys and girls this is what happens when you try to read into something vs taking it at face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326476273' post='2898853'] It really just boils down to my thought being my belief that rationally this post wasn't a good idea, even if well intended. [/quote] This is actually a fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qazzian Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326476273' post='2898853'] I don't know why I would be dense, I'm opaque, but generally humans are made out of water. At least on this planet. [/quote] I literally have no idea what you're trying to say here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='thekirbyfake' timestamp='1326475846' post='2898847'] Declare on [i]what[/i] exactly? Over 2/3rds of Sparta are in peace mode. Barely any free slots (last week genuinely zero in my range) and the ones that are "fighting" are doing so in turtle mode. Sparta have lost this conflict and I can't see how they can possibly argue otherwise. And we shouldn't forget they were the ones doing the declaring. [/quote] Well, from all of their membership's phallus waving and saber-rattling it shouldn't bother them too much, one would assume. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1326476497' post='2898856'] Boys and girls this is what happens when you try to read into something vs taking it at face value. [/quote] I'm sorry, but if my doctor was going to try to sell me some random pills I never needed and he only believed that everyone should have them now, I'm going to look into what he's selling and why he's doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Qazzian' timestamp='1326476594' post='2898860'] I literally have no idea what you're trying to say here. [/quote] I was addressing part of the entirety of his post, something very few here have seemed to have mastered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326476721' post='2898862'] I'm sorry, but if my doctor was going to try to sell me some random pills I never needed and he only believed that everyone should have them now, I'm going to look into what he's selling and why he's doing it. [/quote] The !@#$% crazy train has arrived and Myth you are the conductor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326476721' post='2898862'] I'm sorry, but if my doctor was going to try to sell me some random pills I never needed and he only believed that everyone should have them now, I'm going to look into what he's selling and why he's doing it. [/quote] It's beginning to sound like you should conduct the same research into the pills others are selling you as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Ad hominem argumentation is basically a compliment within this community. If you had not wanted questioned perhaps you should have never started. There is a recurring theme, there. Let me know if you need it pointed out for you. Edited January 13, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 It’s been a slow OWF day. This thread was needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326476273' post='2898853'] I don't know why I would be dense, I'm opaque, but generally humans are made out of water. At least on this planet. I completely understand your frustration and sentiment for why you might have that sort of opinion or feel a certain way. Hell, my alliance is in a situation not dissimilar but not as exaggerated. There are, however, very few reasons why I could see a leader of an alliance in a situation not dissimilar to yours would make such a post in World Affairs and attempt to castigate your current opponents for their decision to continue onwards with war. One, you want to put pressure on them with a subtle threat that should things continue you may very well be inclined to add reperations or add pressure in hopes of garnering sympathy from other alliances that those remaining in conflict may be allied to. Highly unlikely on the latter, but still possible.. Two, your alliance.and/or yourself are simply frustrated with the events that have happened and the situation your current alliance is currently in. (Which is where I've emphasized and you've accepted was in fact partly your own doing.) and this is your way of blowing off steam, and I would think that this would not be the proper avenue. To take your argument at face value is another story entirely, because one could simply say that Fark, Fan et al are having a blast in their current situation (and I don't think that would be too much of a stretch,) and thus now we have a conflict where we enter a brave new-era and two parties willingly enter a war but because one believes it's time to move on and the other doesn't there is an air of dissatisfaction and maybe even hate towards said parties because they are playing exactly as this new brave world was supposed to allow, and thus the argument falls in upon itself. It really just boils down to my thought being my belief that rationally this post wasn't a good idea, even if well intended. [/quote] I am going to put this very simply. If some party wants to cause damage to us for a cause we think is dumb and unnecessary, we reserve every right to stop treating that party with leniency, and take steps to avoid such future damage. In much the same way as choosing to start a war, choosing to continue it will incur a reaction from the other side. In some cases, if they are fighting to protect a material benefit or an ally (as in Sparta's case), we can appreciate their reasoning. In others, we see pointless violence. They have every right to make a decision to be proud or have fun by fighting us. We have every right to make a decision to put a stop to that. Action and reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1326477537' post='2898874'] I am going to put this very simply. If some party wants to cause damage to us for a cause we think is dumb and unnecessary, we reserve every right to stop treating that party with leniency, and take steps to avoid such future damage. In much the same way as choosing to start a war, choosing to continue it will incur a reaction from the other side. In some cases, if they are fighting to protect a material benefit or an ally (as in Sparta's case), we can appreciate their reasoning. In others, we see pointless violence. They have every right to make a decision to be proud or have fun by fighting us. We have every right to make a decision to put a stop to that. Action and reaction. [/quote] I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I [i]agree[/i] with your point. I just don't see why you ( The New Pacific Order,) don't[b] [/b][i][b]do[/b] [/i]that instead of making this ridiculous OWF post that looks every bit of what I described it as earlier otherwise. Edited January 13, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326476273' post='2898853'] I don't know why I would be dense, I'm opaque, but generally humans are made out of water. At least on this planet. I completely understand your frustration and sentiment for why you might have that sort of opinion or feel a certain way. Hell, my alliance is in a situation not dissimilar but not as exaggerated. There are, however, very few reasons why I could see a leader of an alliance in a situation not dissimilar to yours would make such a post in World Affairs and attempt to castigate your current opponents for their decision to continue onwards with war. One, you want to put pressure on them with a subtle threat that should things continue you may very well be inclined to add reperations or add pressure in hopes of garnering sympathy from other alliances that those remaining in conflict may be allied to. Highly unlikely on the latter, but still possible.. Two, your alliance.and/or yourself are simply frustrated with the events that have happened and the situation your current alliance is currently in. (Which is where I've emphasized and you've accepted was in fact partly your own doing.) and this is your way of blowing off steam, and I would think that this would not be the proper avenue. To take your argument at face value is another story entirely, because one could simply say that Fark, Fan et al are having a blast in their current situation (and I don't think that would be too much of a stretch,) and thus now we have a conflict where we enter a brave new-era and two parties willingly enter a war but because one believes it's time to move on and the other doesn't there is an air of dissatisfaction and maybe even hate towards said parties because they are playing exactly as this new brave world was supposed to allow, and thus the argument falls in upon itself. It really just boils down to my thought being my belief that rationally this post wasn't a good idea, even if well intended. [/quote] There is no subtle threat. Some alliances have been provided a deadline, after said deadline expires, there will be additional terms. No subtlety at all. I doubt it will be reps though, it will be worse. When someone offers you the option in a completely losing war to surrender with no terms beyond re-entry, and you need time to think, it must not be time for the war to end. When it is time for you, maybe it won't be time for us to want to see it finished yet. Maybe you'll get to enjoy another 30 days of peace mode, since it's so loved. Maybe Aid will be restricted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1326477537' post='2898874'] I am going to put this very simply. If some party wants to cause damage to us for a cause we think is dumb and unnecessary, we reserve every right to stop treating that party with leniency, and take steps to avoid such future damage. In much the same way as choosing to start a war, choosing to continue it will incur a reaction from the other side. [b]In some cases, if they are fighting to protect a material benefit or an ally (as in Sparta's case),[/b] we can appreciate their reasoning. In others, we see pointless violence. They have every right to make a decision to be proud or have fun by fighting us. We have every right to make a decision to put a stop to that. Action and reaction. [/quote] Fark is in for Polar, so why don't you appreciate them holding out until their ally gets peace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1326478026' post='2898885'] Fark is in for Polar, so why don't you appreciate them holding out until their ally gets peace? [/quote] Except they said they're holding out because they haven't lost. Unless you're implying that they're being disingenuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1326478026' post='2898885'] Fark is in for Polar, so why don't you appreciate them holding out until their ally gets peace? [/quote] This is a surprising change in support from earlier in the conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1326478026' post='2898885'] Fark is in for Polar, so why don't you appreciate them holding out until their ally gets peace? [/quote] They said they wont exit without Sparta and FAN.. no problem. Funny, Polar NEVER was mentioned. Stick to GOD Gibs, you have your own problems there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326477669' post='2898878'] I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact, I [i]agree[/i] with your point. I just don't see why you ( The New Pacific Order,) don't[b] [/b][i][b]do[/b] [/i]that instead of making this ridiculous OWF post that looks every bit of what I described it as earlier otherwise. [/quote] Oh, there are several reasons for that. We want to make another attempt at explaining to the other party in the negotiations why we think they aren't being wise. We want to explain to our greater audience what is going on so that their reaction might add additional pressure, and so that they might better understand why we might decide to change policies should this continue. We also want to make it clear to any future combatants we face that whilst we are going to play nice overall, if they cross the line into what we feel is pursuing an unreasonable war against us, we might stop being so nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1326478307' post='2898890'] They said they wont exit without Sparta and FAN.. no problem. Funny, Polar NEVER was mentioned. Stick to GOD Gibs, you have your own problems there. [/quote] Well, you say you offered them all WP, so they're obviously fighting for something else. I'll just move on to jrenster. [quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1326478162' post='2898888'] Except they said they're holding out because they haven't lost. Unless you're implying that they're being disingenuous. [/quote] OK then, I'll accept I'm wrong and go digging around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1326478026' post='2898885'] Fark is in for Polar, so why don't you appreciate them holding out until their ally gets peace? [/quote] As already stated, FARK has made no mention of Polar getting peace to be part of their requirements for ending this conflict. Their requirements were not being bound to stay out of the conflict, and not admitting defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 13, 2012 Report Share Posted January 13, 2012 Usually, agreeing with both Krack and Myth is a very very bad thing, but this topic was really Un-nessicary. Everyone on your side already agrees with you, and FAN, FARK, and Sparta aren't going to decide to quit just because they had a mean OWF topic made about them. So, why did you do this exactly? 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.