King Wally Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1326925643' post='2902390'] Should have put me in your play and GOONS would have accepted it. Probably have to do it in a funnily painful/sexual compromising position. [/quote] Hmmm love triangle between 2 lumberjacks and a snowman? All set within the confines of the ill fated end times. Dam I think you may be onto something there Omni! Edited January 18, 2012 by King Wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1326921230' post='2902321'] Hey someone gets it! [/quote] JA, it's a bad sign when Myth agrees with your posts. [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1326925643' post='2902390'] Should have put me in your play and GOONS would have accepted it. Probably have to do it in a funnily painful/sexual compromising position. [/quote] Actually I think that would be grounds for a months war continuance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Wally Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1326925906' post='2902395'] Actually I think that would be grounds for a months war continuance. [/quote] Hmmm I do think we must be nearing a month since I submitted that first draft... it would cut it close but the Snowman love scene may have just saved us a few pixels still I think, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 [quote name='kerschbs' timestamp='1326835327' post='2901670'] GATO veterans who survived the GATO-1v war would have killed for those terms. Instead we got peace mode=pzi, nuke=pzi, and a goddamn viceroy to secure peace[/quote] Oh man don't remind me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1326898206' post='2902125'] I, too, often fall victim to this mistake The hyperbole from Charles and Seerow was dumb. [/quote] You really didn't "get" my post did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) [quote][20:56] <tf905[Fark]> TOP/IRON hit Polar first. For no legitimate reason whatsoever.[/quote] Yeah, right. NpO started a war, got TOP and IRON in on their side, then switched sides while holding their middle finger high in the air. But there was no reason for this war at all. It's was just a random act of violence. One had nothing to do with the other. It's not surprising that after being offered very simple light terms, they decided that they should start making demands of NPO, who they attacked. Fark has always been incompetent, and they always will be. This part was funny. [quote][21:13] <tf905[Fark]> The original error was top/iron's then yours for supporting it. We entered to defend our treaty partner against someone making aggressive overtures towards our treaty partner.[/quote] Note that NPO wasn't at war with anyone when Fark attacked them, and that the "treaty" Fark has with NpO is a [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs"]PIAT[/url]. He !@#$%*es and whines that after Fark/FAN attacked NPO that NPO's treaty partners got involved, but his alliance used a PIAT to attack an alliance that was not at that time at war with anyone. Edited January 18, 2012 by Baldr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1326925906' post='2902395'] JA, it's a bad sign when Myth agrees with your posts. [/quote] Technically he agreed with mine since I have been saying it since the first page of the original thread. [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/angry.png[/img]Ya GOON![img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/angry.png[/img] Edited January 19, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's an ODoAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1326837418' post='2901704'] losing your cool in [i][b]Sparta [/b][/i]talks [/quote] Schatt, if you thought that was losing his cool, you haven't seen him really in action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1326931751' post='2902494'] Schatt, if you thought that was losing his cool, you haven't seen him really in action. [/quote] I bet my logs beat yours! Edited January 19, 2012 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326931617' post='2902491'] It's an ODoAP. [/quote] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs"]http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs[/url] It may be anything. It's not like I'm an insider, and I know some people believe in "secret treaties", and others believe in "Lets make a treaty when it's convenient and then tell people it was a secret treaty that we had all along" and all kinds of things. But what the Fark wiki page says is that it's a PIAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitchellBade Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326904810' post='2902175'] Actually, I was surprised IAA didn't cancel Polar over Legion. They should have and we could have avoided a lot of headaches. [/quote] And you continue to bring up a defunct alliance why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1326935348' post='2902557'] And you continue to bring up a defunct alliance why? [/quote] Since it was mentioned that x was isolating y. Just because the alliance is defunct doesn't mean it didn't have an impact. The whole "let's forget everything before arbitrary point y" movement in CN isn't one I buy into as someone who cares about history. OOC: It reminds me of Big O or something. [quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1326934676' post='2902545'] [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs"]http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs[/url] It may be anything. It's not like I'm an insider, and I know some people believe in "secret treaties", and others believe in "Lets make a treaty when it's convenient and then tell people it was a secret treaty that we had all along" and all kinds of things. But what the Fark wiki page says is that it's a PIAT. [/quote] Look further down or ctrl +f hardboiled Edited January 19, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MitchellBade Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326904810' post='2902175'] Actually, I was surprised IAA didn't cancel Polar over Legion. [/quote] You clearly didn't know Chimaera then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1326936432' post='2902566'] You clearly didn't know Chimaera then. [/quote] Well, I know his rationale for loyalty to Polar, since he posted it on these forums when IAA cancelled TIO but it didn't seem to mesh with an anti-NPO stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Man Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 So, I'm guessing an agreement hasn't been reached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) From what I can tell Fark and FAN are having a good time enjoying the war, so they're not in a big rush to surrender and aren't overly concerned about their pixels either. So if they're having fun and its mostly NPO trying to rush an end to the war, I doubt we'll see an agreement reached in time for the deadline if NPO wants a surrender to come of this. Edited January 19, 2012 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldr Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1326936023' post='2902563'] Look further down or ctrl +f hardboiled [/quote] No thanks. I went to their wiki, I searched for New Polar Order, and their wiki says they have a PIAT. Once Ctrl-f on New Polar Order quit giving me results, I left. I'm not going to search on esoteric terms like hardboiled. I can't imagine why anyone would. It's not my fault that their wiki lies about their treaties. It doesn't surprise me, either, as I've never considered Fark to be competent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) It doesn't. It says ODAP at the bottom with NpO in it. It's sloppy wiki updating, but it's still there. You could have also found it by looking on either Fark or NpO's forums. 04/08/10 The Hardboiled Treaty (ODAP) NpO Valid I mean, Feanor even announced the upgrade from PIAT to ODAP. This isn't something you want to fight on. Polar's wiki: Jul 17, 2011 The Hardboiled Treaty FARK ODAP Active I've taken the liberty of eliminating the other treaty list from Fark's wiki since it doesn't make sense to have two. Edited January 19, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1326925827' post='2902394'] Hmmm love triangle between 2 lumberjacks and a snowman? All set within the confines of the ill fated end times. Dam I think you may be onto something there Omni! [/quote] I thought it was a good theme too. [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1326925906' post='2902395'] Actually I think that would be grounds for a months war continuance. [/quote] Jealous of my lumber jack lovin'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1326940706' post='2902611'] Jealous of my lumber jack lovin'? [/quote] You've a Paul Bunyan fantasy, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1326941442' post='2902616'] You've a Paul Bunyan fantasy, then? [/quote] Crymson you can call me babe anytime. [img]http://manhattaninfidel.com/__oneclick_uploads/2011/10/paul-bunyan.jpg[/img] On topic, you guys need to end this war pretty soon somehow. It's pretty boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1326857343' post='2901944'] But all the arguing is being done by people not involved. [/quote] I was referring to the IRC logs and refusal to accept the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Doomee Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1326942329' post='2902629'] I was referring to the IRC logs and refusal to accept the terms. [/quote] We did NOT refuse to accept Brehon's terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1326837418' post='2901704']You're not guilty of being too nice; you're guilty of negotiating in bad faith and/or going off the reservation. This idea that because FAN and Fark are getting wrecked they're the only ones that need peace and thus should be kissing your feet for giving them a light offer is flawed. You are also taking damage, and if this gets ugly NPO knows where it will go: millions down the tube and lost tech realizations to FAN/Fark spies, withering guerrilla attacks, etc etc: another viet-era for NPO. NPO might lose less NS due to a prolonged war, but NPO has just as much incentive to get this over with and get it over with yesterday. That's why the offer is light.[/quote] I am amused by the suggestion by you, and the implication from Fark/FAN's response, that NPO has negotiated in bad faith. At worst, NPO is guilty of opening the negotiations with an overly lenient offer, rather than beginning with an ambit claim on the assumption that the terms would be negotiated lower. The problem is that the initial respect and good faith displayed by NPO was not reciprocated. Instead, Fark/FAN apparently viewed the best-offer as a sign of weakness, as demonstrated by their attempts to negotiate it even lower. Sure, Brehon making a subsequent concession and then pulling it is not ideal, and fits in nicely with Fark/FAN's PR regarding NPO. But doing so provided no advantage to NPO (e.g. there was no temporary ceasfire), and the level of Fark/FAN's disappointment is a reflection of how lenient those terms were. Of course they were disappointed; they couldn't believe their luck when it looked like they had been able to attack NPO, and then lose and still not make any concession of defeat! I also think that you greatly overestimate the damage that Fark/FAN can do to NPO. As far as I can tell, NPO is launching more wars at them then they are launching on NPO. We all know the numbers, and with its middle and upper tiers largely intact, I hardly think that NPO's opening offer reflected a particular desire to exit the war before Fark/FAN could cause more damage. Edited January 19, 2012 by Sir Humphrey 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.