Opportunity Lost

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326532844' post='2899335']
Because FAN's government are the same people who were screwed over by NPO. TOP/IRON talk a lot about Grub and for FAN, the same goes for Moo-Cows or anyone else who was government who's still there. Your grudge has no reason to be privileged over theirs.
[/quote]
'forever' was the key word.

[Monster]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1326543631' post='2899356']
'forever' was the key word.
[/quote]

I guess they might have to stop after this. I don't know, but posts from some in TOP make it seem like theirs will last forever, too.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1326509508' post='2899195']
Most wars on this planet are won the moment they start. So by your logic and that of others in this thread then this war should have been over the day Fark declared.[/quote]
It is only 'dragging it out' when your continued presence serves no useful purpose for your alliance or allies. Fighting on for better peace terms, to cause damage to your enemies or to prevent the alliances currently engaging you from piling on an ally you entered to protect are fine.

However, as you point out, the stated reason for opening the NPO front is no longer providing any value to their coalition, if it ever was. Sparta are hiding all their meaningful nations in PM and are not contributing anything to the coalition either. Peace terms are as light as they can get for a losing side. So the only reason to fight on is if they consider their opponents to be enemies, and they are intentionally causing damage beyond that needed to secure their wartime objectives to them, in which case they deserve to be treated like enemies and to pay reps for the damage done for that reason.

[quote]Further, why isn't anyone talking about the other front not closing out? What are the terms for NpO? Are they prolonging peace by not admitting their defeat?[/quote]
My guess is that Polar have not been offered such an easy peace and thus they need to fight on to try to force TOP into reducing them. Either that, or they're not being offered terms at all yet – with anyone who could object to Polar being utterly destroyed either crushed themselves or already bound not to re-enter, there's not a lot the world could do about it, though I wouldn't support such a thing. One should expect Polar to pay very significant reparations to TOP though, considering the terms that TOP had to pay as a direct result of NpO's duplicity in Bipolar (and that TOP has not had a chance to pursue justice for that until now).

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1326539097' post='2899348']
No you were acting like a child, but call it what you want.
[/quote]

I challenge you to find any part of my previous posts in this thread that support your argument.

You quoted a part of a post explaining a part of another post that explained what another individual explicitly stated they did not understand after they quite pointedly stated they had "no idea," what the post they quoted meant, which if you bothered to have read you would have understood.. This was after multiple individuals chose to act like "children," and attempt to castigate a message that was later discovered to be spot on with its intent as confirmed by officers of the government whom made the original post.

Congratulations on falling in line with the other nine individuals who had nothing to offer but name-calling and ad hominem argumentation to the discussion.
At the very least, if it's not too much to ask: Could we not mix an argumentation style made famous by children while accusing others of being children?
It just doesn't feel right.

I think this is where I insult reading comprehension, make fun of an alliance affiliation or develop a man-crush on another user and feel the need to post one or both of the previous after every post they make ITT.

Edited January 14, 2012 by IYIyTh

[Monster]

I don't really know what you're looking for here Myth. BS and evasiveness prevails.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Proest' timestamp='1326537165' post='2899343']
It was extremely poor strategy to attack NPO to begin with, I noted this while MoFA in MHA. Clearly, XX believed attacking NPO would shift the dynamics of the war because the statistics stacked against the bloc, clearly that was idiocy to the core. I, for one am very glad I had no part in the planning of the war and was only responsible for foreign affairs for MHA.

I understood the strategy, but god damn it was stupid. I remember certain Triumvir's telling me it was brilliant.


[/quote]

To be fair, technically you were the MoFA of that alliance when they made that decision.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326546506' post='2899367']
I don't really know what you're looking for here Myth. BS and evasiveness prevails.
[/quote]

I got what I wanted from Letum, and I have already thanked him for his answers.
More than anything, my position stems from the inability to see the practicality of the OP and the fact that the OP itself was written rather hurriedly.

Not the best work I've seen from Pacifica, at the very least.

Edited January 14, 2012 by IYIyTh

[scytale]

I’m going to risk whatever punishment comes for breaking radio silence and post this.

Whether on purpose by others to spin images of Fark to their needs or because Fark has been out of the CN public due to radio silence, many have the wrong impression of Fark. Many seem to have the impression that Fark as an alliance is made up of egotistical trollers. That image is easy to spin even without radio silence because of how the initial conversations tend to go. But, for those that may know me, do you think I would have joined and stayed almost a year now if they really were like that? The difference between those that troll and Farkers are the preferred end result. Trollers look to push people’s buttons in an attempt to get a negative reaction like anger or frustration and isolate them from the group. Farkers look to push people’s buttons to get a laugh for all including the one that’s being targeted and bring them into the group. Yes, Farkers can get really mean when we don’t like you but that’s normal for anyone. For the other times, you just have to have some self-deprecating humor and we all will laugh with you instead of at you. Well, I guess we’ll laugh at you too but you’ll be accepted and laugh at you as you laugh at yourself.

We also don’t explain jokes so that everyone else can get a laugh at your expense. If you can laugh at yourself because you missed the joke, you’ll be fine. If not, we dismiss you as immature. That might be one reason many think Farkers are egotistical. For instance (and I’m breaking another Fark rule here), Hobo was making a joke hoping for two outcomes. People that get the joke would continue it on, make it funnier and possibly even snowball into something we all can get a big laugh. For those that don’t get the joke, everyone else would begin to make inferences to the joke without explaining the joke to see how far we can go before they realize the whole thing was a joke and get a big laugh at their expense. Now I’ve broken two Fark rules in this one post. Here’s to hoping I don’t get kicked out. (I still like beer!)

Now for this thread. I’m not going to comment on most of it to keep some semblance of radio silence but aren’t threads that start this way usually meant to be a dialog just in a public forum? But since Fark is famous for radio silence, you could not have expected a response. Therefore this could only be for some other reason.

This is Scytale. Signing off… hey give me that mike back….. static……

[Bob Janova]

Radio silence is stupid and allows the opinions of others (usually your enemies) to shape the public image of your alliance. That's not so much of a problem when you're part of the hegemonic political structure of the time, because you have other people to go and bat for you (when NPO went on radio silence they had a whole sphere of allies pushing the bloc line, and likewise for the last 2½ years you've had people in SF and C&G to project the image you wanted people to see). But when times get tough and you are outside the powerful political structures, it allows you to be demonised and/or ridiculed and you lose sympathy (e.g. GATO and Legion in GW3).

[Proest]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326546733' post='2899368']
To be fair, technically you were the MoFA of that alliance when they made that decision.
[/quote]

This is like saying because you were in a building when it caught fire, you were partly responsible.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Proest' timestamp='1326548488' post='2899377']
This is like saying because you were in a building when it caught fire, you were partly responsible.
[/quote]

If you own it or were in charge of putting the faulty electrical wiring in... pretty much.

I'm being a little facetious in that the MoFA...welll, any position other than Triumvir in that now-assembly-membership-less autocracy has the ability to make any pertinent decisions (unless you count electing those individuals, dot dot dot,) in that regard, but nonetheless I'm more inclined to have less sympathy when you in fact were a member of the government at the time those decisions were made is all.

[Proest]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326548724' post='2899379']
If you own it or were in charge of putting the faulty electrical wiring in... pretty much.

I'm being a little facetious in that the MoFA...welll, any position other than Triumvir in that now-assembly-membership-less autocracy has the ability to make any pertinent decisions (unless you count electing those individuals, dot dot dot,) in that regard, but nonetheless I'm more inclined to have less sympathy when you in fact were a member of the government at the time those decisions were made is all.
[/quote]

Member of government with no say. Full circle.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1326547796' post='2899375']
I’m going to risk whatever punishment comes for breaking radio silence and post this.

Whether on purpose by others to spin images of Fark to their needs or because Fark has been out of the CN public due to radio silence, many have the wrong impression of Fark. Many seem to have the impression that Fark as an alliance is made up of egotistical trollers. That image is easy to spin even without radio silence because of how the initial conversations tend to go. But, for those that may know me, do you think I would have joined and stayed almost a year now if they really were like that? The difference between those that troll and Farkers are the preferred end result. Trollers look to push people’s buttons in an attempt to get a negative reaction like anger or frustration and isolate them from the group. Farkers look to push people’s buttons to get a laugh for all including the one that’s being targeted and bring them into the group. Yes, Farkers can get really mean when we don’t like you but that’s normal for anyone. For the other times, you just have to have some self-deprecating humor and we all will laugh with you instead of at you. Well, I guess we’ll laugh at you too but you’ll be accepted and laugh at you as you laugh at yourself.

We also don’t explain jokes so that everyone else can get a laugh at your expense. If you can laugh at yourself because you missed the joke, you’ll be fine. If not, we dismiss you as immature. That might be one reason many think Farkers are egotistical. For instance (and I’m breaking another Fark rule here), Hobo was making a joke hoping for two outcomes. People that get the joke would continue it on, make it funnier and possibly even snowball into something we all can get a big laugh. For those that don’t get the joke, everyone else would begin to make inferences to the joke without explaining the joke to see how far we can go before they realize the whole thing was a joke and get a big laugh at their expense. Now I’ve broken two Fark rules in this one post. Here’s to hoping I don’t get kicked out. (I still like beer!)

Now for this thread. I’m not going to comment on most of it to keep some semblance of radio silence but aren’t threads that start this way usually meant to be a dialog just in a public forum? But since Fark is famous for radio silence, you could not have expected a response. Therefore this could only be for some other reason.

This is Scytale. Signing off… hey give me that mike back….. static……
[/quote]

To be honest, I think that any alliance that prohibits its members from engaging in this medium, deserve to get the reputation of ego-manias. It communicates that you think you are better than the vast majority of us here, and that this "cesspool" (which is sometimes is, but ALL politics are a cesspool)is beneath you. It says to others that you consider them to be 2nd class in comparison to yourself, because you would not engage in this nonsense. Like anything else, the OWF is a tool of politics. It is more damage not to use the tool, than it is to use it improperly.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Rush Sykes

[Proest]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1326549044' post='2899382']
To be honest, I think that any alliance that prohibits its members from engaging in this medium, deserve to get the reputation of ego-manias. It communicates that you think you are better than the vast majority of us here, and that this "cesspool" (which is sometimes is, but ALL politics are a cesspool)is beneath you. It says to others that you consider them to be 2nd class in comparison to yourself, because you would not engage in this nonsense. Like anything else, the OWF is a tool of politics. It is more damage not to use the tool, than it is to use it improperly.
[/quote]

Wow, did we both give the same political lecture to MHA? I feel like you copied my notes. :v

[Captain Flinders]

I think some people have forgotten how this whole surrender and peace terms thing works. Even if you are numerically victorious, the defeated is not obliged to agree or comply with your terms. They can choose to stay at war. If they choose war, give it to them.

What is all the complaining about? If you're winning and they want you to keep winning all over their face, continue. Seriously.

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326549505' post='2899386']
What is all the complaining about?
[/quote]

Turning down a good offer from what I understand.

[Proest]

[quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326549505' post='2899386']
I think some people have forgotten how this whole surrender and peace terms thing works. Even if you are numerically victorious, the defeated is not obliged to agree or comply with your terms. They can choose to stay at war. If they choose war, give it to them.

What is all the complaining about? If you're winning and they want you to keep winning all over their face, continue. Seriously.
[/quote]

Strictly from an observatory point and having been present when discussions revolving around said OP actions took place numerous days ago: [i]some people just like to watch their own pixels burn.[/i]




*Salute to TDK

[Goldie]

[quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1326472899' post='2898801']
For the first time in a long time, a huge list of victorious alliances have stated "No reps, admit defeat, end wars, don't re-enter".
[/quote]

ITT NPO invents peace with no reps.

[Branimir]

I swear to god, some people didn't read more then 3 lines of text here. Yet, they see it fit to share their "input". Never change CN.

Well, to just add to the points raised in this thread (for those that actually read them), I would just like to say that it is also fairly ridiculous to not apply "cut your losses to fight another day" card.

There is not much gas left in the tank of this planet. While, as the main point of this thread is, we could still drain as much fun as we can from what will soon just be fumes, we could also choose this. Two alliances that could still be a potent actor on the world stage creating drama, deciding to suicide themselves for their delusional pride, and next time situation like this arises victors not really being willing to give out "easy" terms but going for the "harsh" ones as obviously,....why not in light of all this. And to add to the absurdness, we actually have people supporting NPO (of all alliances) to put back reps on the table and to be "meanies" again to a degree.

Opportunity for the rational option here is getting lost. The thing has become so one dimensional, slow, dumb, absurd. Rather then I be on an alert of a rebuilding and revitalized fan/fark waiting for some new opportune time to strike, and fallowing how the politicking game is played out, I am beating a dead horse on the battlefield. !@#$, yes, we can do that, ok. Lets do it until admin kills this boring planet. The point here raised is, dammit, get your act together and even more ass kicking can be had in the future rather then one sided pulverization.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Branimir

[nutkase]

[quote name='Farrin Xies' timestamp='1326527843' post='2899314']
We refuse to call it a defeat
[/quote]

/end of thread!

I have seen the logs of the Sparta discussion, idiotic at best considering the offer that was on the table.

[Sir Humphrey]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326547082' post='2899371']
I got what I wanted from Letum, and I have already thanked him for his answers.
More than anything, my position stems from the inability to see the practicality of the OP and the fact that the OP itself was written rather hurriedly.

Not the best work I've seen from Pacifica, at the very least.
[/quote]
Don't you see the irony of you continuing to post in this thread to argue about whether the thread was necessary? You could have made your point in one post, and others (including myself) have highlighted why this thread was necessary. Furthermore, the argument lately has been that not enough politics occurs on the OWF, so surely this is a change for the better, and an opportunity to debate what the OP actually said rather than whether the OP was necessary.


[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326546506' post='2899367']
I don't really know what you're looking for here Myth. BS and evasiveness prevails.
[/quote]
I have a lot of respect for you because of your previous role, but this is just silly. The OP stated the issue plainly, and I don't believe that the facts are in dispute. I also don't see the relevance of reminiscing about historical events that have no bearing here.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Sir Humphrey

[Monster]

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1326556748' post='2899428']
I have a lot of respect for you because of your previous role, but this is just silly. The OP stated the issue plainly, and I don't believe that the facts are in dispute. I also don't see the relevance of reminiscing about historical events that have no bearing here.
[/quote]

Well, the RoK issue is connected since it set the precedent for this kind of thing. Like I said, the problem is Fark has bottomed out. They were bored before the war and it's helped them a lot. Yevgeni mentioned TOP as a counter example but the thing with TOP was TOP was highly energized before their war and it then took a toll.

The whole "you just hit infants" thing just annoys me in this context.

I mean if I just want pure propaganda lines, I can go read some old editions of Pravda or something.

edit: The past shapes the present and selective memory has always bothered me.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Roquentin

[enderland]

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1326547796' post='2899375']
I’m going to risk whatever punishment comes for breaking radio silence and post this.

Whether on purpose by others to spin images of Fark to their needs or because Fark has been out of the CN public due to radio silence, many have the wrong impression of Fark. Many seem to have the impression that Fark as an alliance is made up of egotistical trollers. That image is easy to spin even without radio silence because of how the initial conversations tend to go. But, for those that may know me, do you think I would have joined and stayed almost a year now if they really were like that? The difference between those that troll and Farkers are the preferred end result. Trollers look to push people’s buttons in an attempt to get a negative reaction like anger or frustration and isolate them from the group. Farkers look to push people’s buttons to get a laugh for all including the one that’s being targeted and bring them into the group. Yes, Farkers can get really mean when we don’t like you but that’s normal for anyone. For the other times, you just have to have some self-deprecating humor and we all will laugh with you instead of at you. Well, I guess we’ll laugh at you too but you’ll be accepted and laugh at you as you laugh at yourself.

We also don’t explain jokes so that everyone else can get a laugh at your expense. If you can laugh at yourself because you missed the joke, you’ll be fine. If not, we dismiss you as immature. That might be one reason many think Farkers are egotistical. For instance (and I’m breaking another Fark rule here), Hobo was making a joke hoping for two outcomes. People that get the joke would continue it on, make it funnier and possibly even snowball into something we all can get a big laugh. For those that don’t get the joke, everyone else would begin to make inferences to the joke without explaining the joke to see how far we can go before they realize the whole thing was a joke and get a big laugh at their expense. Now I’ve broken two Fark rules in this one post. Here’s to hoping I don’t get kicked out. (I still like beer!)

Now for this thread. I’m not going to comment on most of it to keep some semblance of radio silence but aren’t threads that start this way usually meant to be a dialog just in a public forum? But since Fark is famous for radio silence, you could not have expected a response. Therefore this could only be for some other reason.

This is Scytale. Signing off… hey give me that mike back….. static……
[/quote]

Another problem with radio silence is that when it is broken it's normally posts which do anything but help the cause of the alliance maintaining radio silence.

[Sir Humphrey]

On that note:
[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326517098' post='2899256']
The issue with Fark is, they don't really care anymore. They've lost their stats and having nothing to lose by prolonging the war.
[/quote]
I actually agree with you that the statistics are not a very convincing argument that Fark/FAN should accept peace. They have already lost that NS, so the issue now is more about what they will gain or lose by staying at war for longer.

However, it is difficult to see what they gain by remaining at war, given they don't appear to have any objectives other than warring against the lower tiers of NPO and its coalition partners.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Sir Humphrey

[Monster]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326557817' post='2899435']
Another problem with radio silence is that when it is broken it's normally posts which do anything but help the cause of the alliance maintaining radio silence.
[/quote]

The issue I had with radio silence is it made us too low profile, couldn't really look good for the audience, so it made attracting people harder.