Caliph Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1326950875' post='2902702'] http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Farkistan#Foreign_Affairs I've linked there before. If you go to that link, it has a list of treaties divided into sections. MDoAP. MDP. ODP. PITA. Protectorates. Under PITA is says "New Polar Order". That's one of two places on the page where "New Polar Order" shows up. You can tell me it doesn't say that all you want, but it's bloody well there. Why you lie about stuff that anyone can see, I have no idea. [/quote] Really, just stop. Look for "NpO", not "New Polar Order" and you will find it. I admit it is sloppy editting using the shortened NpO and not the full name, but it is present. Regarding these terms, the original terms are more than fair. I've been here since Gw2 and I've fought in most every war since then. There have been a few wars where my side would've killed for terms like this. The bawwing and not accepting terms because it says you won't reenter the war and you don't want to say that you lost a war when its quite clear you have is childish. These terms are very lenient, I'd suggest taking them if they are still on the table. If you don't even I won't be able to badmouth NPO or others for an increase in reps and such. I was around for NPO's hegemony and got beat down several times for it. They would be fully justified in making harsher peace terms here should you refuse the offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1327006221' post='2902999'] Misrepresentation? Stop reaching Schatt. Your underdog rah rah should have a barrier. [/quote] Brehon nailed me! I'm just cheering for the underdog regardless of circumstances. That's why I advised FAN and Fark to take the terms. You're too clever for me, Brehon, I can't get anything past you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327009356' post='2903031'] The bawwing and not accepting terms because it says you won't reenter the war and you don't want to say that you lost a war when its quite clear you have is childish. [/quote] I don't know if people are being willfully ignorant, or oversimplifying, or what, but here we go. The terms are not simply an admission of defeat and no re-entry, they are: [20:25] <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> I feel, and my Regent and other officers agree, that Fark has lost enough as it is, and as such we will not be seeking reparations from you. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> We do want an official statement from Fark acknowledging defeat and that your entry into this war was a mistake. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That will be the only "term." <&Brehon[NPO]> No reentry <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That as well. Two terms, but three requirements: (1) An admission of defeat, (2) an acknowledgement that Fark/FAN were wrong to declare war, and (3) no re-entry. However, even NPO's Regent Brehon [i]in this very thread[/i] on multiple occasions has said that NPO's DoS justified FAN/Fark's attack. So, NPO is asking FAN/Fark to make a statement that is contrary to their own correct position, and which is contrary to NPO's own position. FAN/Fark are not "childishly" refusing to accept terms "because [they] don't want to say that [they] lost a war" they are refusing to accept terms which require a statement contrary to the truth. If anything is childish, it's trying to make FAN/Fark say something which NPO itself says is not true. Edited January 19, 2012 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327010325' post='2903039'] I don't know if people are being willfully ignorant, or oversimplifying, or what, but here we go. The terms are not simply an admission of defeat and no re-entry, they are: [20:25] <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> I feel, and my Regent and other officers agree, that Fark has lost enough as it is, and as such we will not be seeking reparations from you. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> We do want an official statement from Fark acknowledging defeat and that your entry into this war was a mistake. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That will be the only "term." <&Brehon[NPO]> No reentry <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That as well. Two terms, but three requirements: (1) An admission of defeat, (2) an acknowledgement that Fark/FAN were wrong to declare war, and (3) no re-entry. However, even NPO's Regent Brehon [i]in this very thread[/i] on multiple occasions has said that NPO's DoS justified FAN/Fark's attack. So, NPO is asking FAN/Fark to make a statement that is contrary to their own correct position, and which is contrary to NPO's own position. FAN/Fark are not "childishly" refusing to accept terms "because [they] don't want to say that [they] lost a war" they are refusing to accept terms which require a statement contrary to the truth. If anything is childish, it's trying to make FAN/Fark say something which NPO itself says is not true. [/quote] When you lose a war you do not dictate surrender terms. If they want to surrender the terms as offered originally as I read them are more than satisfactory. If you do not agree with being forced to say something you think is a lie, work that out in negotiations. Regardless, the terms as presented in the OP are very lenient. They should be taken with the utmost haste because a lot of people don't care for the shens about people not wanting to say they lost a war. Man up, own up to your defeats, and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327011931' post='2903056'] work that out in negotiations. [/quote] There it is: Which is it? You say they're childish for not accepting the terms and that they should "man up" and accept the terms, and in the same breath you say they should negotiate the terms if they don't like them. Which is it. That is the fundamental problem with all you o/ swarmers who just 6 months ago were demanding the complete destruction of NPO's [i]entire [/i]top tier and today are orgasmic that NPO has fallen in line behind you. It is so sickening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote] FAN/Fark are not "childishly" refusing to accept terms "because [they] don't want to say that [they] lost a war" they are refusing to accept terms which require a statement contrary to the truth. [/quote] Actually no. FARK and FAN have been pretty clear that the contentious issue here is that they did not consider themselves defeated, and were unwilling to surrender as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327012822' post='2903062'] There it is: Which is it? You say they're childish for not accepting the terms and that they should "man up" and accept the terms, and in the same breath you say they should negotiate the terms if they don't like them. Which is it. That is the fundamental problem with all you o/ swarmers who just 6 months ago were demanding the complete destruction of NPO's [i]entire [/i]top tier and today are orgasmic that NPO has fallen in line behind you. It is so sickening. [/quote] The reason for the demand for NPO's top tier demolishment has been explained numerous times by people more in the know and more in charge of that war front than me. I personally didn't fight NPO that war, I had my hands full with ML folks and kudos to them cuz they can scrap. I am saying that these terms are more than fair, that alliances just 2 years ago would have been ecstatic to receive such terms, and the amount of spin against the NPO here is what is really pathetic. Sure NPO was the big evil and ran train on folks years ago. Yes they deserved the beat down they got. But in this instance the strategy of FARK and FAN to hit NPO to rally the masses against NPO fell flat and so has the efforts to rally public opinion against NPO. NPO is in the right here. The terms are more than fair and give FARK and FAN an easy out to a fight in which they had both gotten smashed hard. I've had to do terms I didn't agree with before, its called manning up and taking one for the team if it gets you the peace you want. I can say with utmost certainty these terms would be accepted in a heartbeat not too long ago. That people are complaining they are too harsh says that since Karma wars have mostly been too soft with terms. I don't advocate disbandment or overly harsh terms, but there should be some terms to at least force you to acknowledge you lost a bloody war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327010325' post='2903039'] I don't know if people are being willfully ignorant, or oversimplifying, or what, but here we go. The terms are not simply an admission of defeat and no re-entry, they are: [20:25] <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> I feel, and my Regent and other officers agree, that Fark has lost enough as it is, and as such we will not be seeking reparations from you. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> We do want an official statement from Fark acknowledging defeat and that your entry into this war was a mistake. <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That will be the only "term." <&Brehon[NPO]> No reentry <~Mary_the_Fantabulous> That as well. Two terms, but three requirements: (1) An admission of defeat, (2) an acknowledgement that Fark/FAN were wrong to declare war, and (3) no re-entry. However, even NPO's Regent Brehon [i]in this very thread[/i] on multiple occasions has said that NPO's DoS justified FAN/Fark's attack. So, NPO is asking FAN/Fark to make a statement that is contrary to their own correct position, and which is contrary to NPO's own position. FAN/Fark are not "childishly" refusing to accept terms "because [they] don't want to say that [they] lost a war" they are refusing to accept terms which require a statement contrary to the truth. If anything is childish, it's trying to make FAN/Fark say something which NPO itself says is not true. [/quote] Who cares? Seriously. A cycle of war takes many more cycles of rebuilding. Every additional cycle of war for the sake of pride simply prolongs the rebuilding. Were even the dithering and the delays some sort of acceptable negotiation tactic (and it is not), not accepting such a peace is foolish. Our opponents have lost this war; that is the reality on the ground. Nothing is gained for our opponents by prolonging this conflict: Pacifica looses no reputation for maintaining war when such an easy peace is offered; Pacifica is not militarily threatened; Pacifica is permitted to maintain a worthy enemy in FAN and an unworthy one in FARK to have our lower tier practice against, maintaining military readiness. This is good. This argument over whether or not a Declaration of Support justifies an otherwise-preemptive attack is pure foolishness. Foreign policy is a game for Rulers who see with their eyes open, who negotiatie with open hands, and who prepare to clench their fist to strike again. It is not for idealists; it is not for people who care more for pride than pixels. Let the propagandists write and the poets sing of whether or not the attack was just from the protection of peace, strength, and prosperity, not under the withering siege of an endless war that could be avoided. If they hate us so, and if they have such a pride, let them at least have the chance to rise again such that pride brings them down anew. I spell out these things because I suspect some of our opponents (though not all) would be well due for such a lesson in foreign policy. Let them heed it; for we are merciful. The next time they strike an opponent with might such as ours, they may not be so lucky as to be offered such a peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327013419' post='2903065'] The reason for the demand for NPO's top tier demolishment has been explained numerous times by people more in the know and more in charge of that war front than me. I personally didn't fight NPO that war, I had my hands full with ML folks and kudos to them cuz they can scrap.[/quote] We vote with our feet. Umbrella pre-empted NPO with no concrete justification--unlike FAN and Fark--over things NPO did just as long ago as the grievances FAN/Fark have with them even though NPO already got their Karma once, the same as FAN is doing now. Where you were stationed does. not. matter. you were a member of Umbrella then, you are a member of Umbrella now, you are part and parcel of the crimes committed against NPO as much as the most uninvolved, ignorant Pacifican peon was guilty during the Continuum era. [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327013419' post='2903065']I am saying that these terms are more than fair, that alliances just 2 years ago would have been ecstatic to receive such terms, and the amount of spin against the NPO here is what is really pathetic. Sure NPO was the big evil and ran train on folks years ago. Yes they deserved the beat down they got.[/quote] The transgressions of NPO over two years ago--literally ages--do not justify or nullify any action today. You once again contradict yourself (and very ironically at that) by justifying the flawed terms offered by NPO today with the egregious crimes of NPO yesterday after just having taken part yourself in the punishment of those same crimes for the second time without cause. [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327013419' post='2903065']But in this instance the strategy of FARK and FAN to hit NPO to rally the masses against NPO fell flat and so has the efforts to rally public opinion against NPO.[/quote] You are editorializing. It was you and your allies which attempted to turn public opinion against NPO during an unjustified beatdown with all that high Karmaic rhetoric. Contrast your rhetoric on NPO with FAN's: Doomhouse Archon: "We cannot allow any chance of a return to power by the New Pacific Order. For years they ruled with an iron fist. They engineered a multitude of first strike "curbstomps," the most grossly abusive among them being the glibly named Woodstock Masscre against the Green Protection Agency. Never one to face an enemy with an even remote chance of victory, and always one to beat on the weak and the vulnerable, the New Pacific Order was a true master of the first strike attack. They could not only beat down the weak, but they had maneuvered the politics of the day such that they could do so with impunity." Ardus: "Our accomplishments are not absolute, nor are they perfect. Already this battle has revealed much work remains to be done in spreading our vision of the world. But in time, all will see the light that is our message, shining from the depths of the Box. We near the end. The end of forced disbandment. The end of terms that cripple alliances forever. The end of silence for fear of persecution. The end of the influence of those who would overthrow these goals in favor of their own return to power. The end of cowardice. The end of myth and fear. The end of this war." And let's not forget Roquentin's neverending blog series. FAN/Fark: "We follow TOP’s praiseworthy example in seeking redress for two of the most heinous acts of barbarism ever inflicted upon the peaceful people of Bob - the attempted infanticide of Farkistan in the Holy War, and the victimization of FAN in VietFAN. Why? Because real reasons like 1-6 aren’t really any fun. It has been a long time coming and now the puppetmasters of the New Pacific Order shall finally reap the harvest of their Machiavellian exploits. We recognize the NPO's declaration of support for TOP and IRON against the New Polar Order and take them up on it!" Night and day. FAN has made no such attempts as you claim, and their DoW was an obvious sarcastic jab at TOP's butthurt, not a real emotional appeal. [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327013419' post='2903065']NPO is in the right here. The terms are more than fair and give FARK and FAN an easy out to a fight in which they had both gotten smashed hard. I've had to do terms I didn't agree with before, its called manning up and taking one for the team if it gets you the peace you want. I can say with utmost certainty these terms would be accepted in a heartbeat not too long ago. That people are complaining they are too harsh says that since Karma wars have mostly been too soft with terms. I don't advocate disbandment or overly harsh terms, but there should be some terms to at least force you to acknowledge you lost a bloody war. [/quote] More editorials. I have seen no claim from Fark or FAN in the logs which say "too harsh." I haven't seen anyone on the OWF say they're too harsh. Terms being unacceptable (for whatever reason) is not the same as saying that they are too harsh. Edited January 19, 2012 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1327014666' post='2903072'] Who cares? Seriously. A cycle of war takes many more cycles of rebuilding. Every additional cycle of war for the sake of pride simply prolongs the rebuilding. Were even the dithering and the delays some sort of acceptable negotiation tactic (and it is not), not accepting such a peace is foolish. [/quote] And [size="6"]ONE MORE TIME[/size] for everyone that keeps replying to me as if I disagree: I have already stated in my [i]very first[/i] post in this thread that Fark and FAN should just take the terms. For the very same reason, however, it is just as expedient for NPO to drop a term which their own official position undermines if NPO wants to shake this off their heel today. I can agree with NPO without agreeing with this trainwreck of a process. Edited January 19, 2012 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327015973' post='2903100'] And [size="6"]ONE MORE TIME[/size] for everyone that keeps replying to me as if I disagree: I have already stated in my [i]very first[/i] post in this thread that Fark and FAN should just take the terms. For the very same reason, however, it is just as expedient for NPO to drop a term which their own official position undermines if NPO wants to shake this off their heel today. [/quote] It ain't all about you, Schatt. As I said in my post, I direct my words far more at some of our less-realpolitik adversaries than I do a mind as sharply honed by reality such as yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1327016100' post='2903103'] It ain't all about you, Schatt. As I said in my post, I direct my words far more at some of our less-realpolitik adversaries than I do a mind as sharply honed by reality such as yourself. [/quote] Then pleasae pardon the confusion, and when you quote me via the "reply" (to me) button, I encourage the use of the hard return tag to separate your response to me from your other points to avoid such confusion in the future. [hr] [code][hr][/code] Edited January 19, 2012 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1327016548' post='2903112'] Then pleasae pardon the confusion, and when you quote me via the "reply" (to me) button, I encourage the use of the hard return tag to separate your response to me from your other points to avoid such confusion in the future. [hr] [code][hr][/code] [/quote] My apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'm a few pages behind now, but 'log dumping' is low class not because IRC logs have some magic quality that makes it so, but because posting any information that the other party had a reasonable expectation would remain confidential is a low class move. That's one reason why alliance members feel so betrayed when someone leaks things from their forums. And really, Fark's entry into the war was a mistake. Look at the result! Personally, I think that pre-emptive strikes are something that we were better off without, so I'd say it was 'wrong' as well, but the term asks Fark to admit a 'mistake', and that is there for all to see in the material outcome of doing so. (By hitting NPO they opened a new front and didn't relieve pressure on NpO at all.) And what's with that argument about PIAT vs ODAP? They're the same thing, and 'they posted a DoS for people who were attacking our PIAT/ODP partner' is certainly not an aggressive action (in the meaning of aggressive/defensive war). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) The argument was that the Fark/NpO ODoAP was not publicized and thus Fark attacked without any treaty justification. Hitting TOP or IRON would not relieve pressure on NpO regardless as Fark would have been attacked immediately by PF and others. Simple as that. It sent people back to the drawing board. IRON's upper tier was in peace mode as well. TOP ended up hitting Fark anyway and if Fark had brought their A-game they could have inflicted serious damage on several alliances. There is no right on either end to complain about preempts as they were utilized on both sides unless NPO issues a stern condemnation of GATO and others. Edited January 20, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 There's never a 'treaty justification' (in the traditional sense i.e. a treaty binding you to someone already at war) for a pre-emptive entry anyway, since, by definition, the alliance you attack is not yet in the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) There was no treaty justification for GATO to hit MHA either if we adopt your line. NPO must condemn that action as well if they wish to demand an apology for the attack on them by Fark. They must also condemn DH-Chestnut, DT/Rok/Legacy on CSN, and other preempts I haven't thought of. They must also condemn an attack on the New Polar Order without any traditional cassus belli. Oh wait. Their DoS explicitly stated that they would be involved in the war if it expanded past its initial combatants. The justification for the TOP/IRON declaration is that they were in the right to preempt C&G and that NpO was wrong for using it to peace out and later declare on them. Consequently, no preemptive attacks can be condemned. I was in #nsa the night Fark declared on NPO and Mary even said "we recognize this as a preemptive attack opening up a new front in the existing conflict." [quote]We, the undersigned alliances, pledge our support of the Order of the Paradox and the Independent Republic of Orange Nations in their conflict against the New Polar Order. Should this war expand beyond the current conflicts, the undersigned reserve the right to use that expansion as a valid casus belli and will broaden their support beyond this declaration to a declaration of war. We will not leave our friends out in the cold as winter comes.[/quote] Edited January 20, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Perhaps I missed something, but I do not see what the big deal is here. Fark and FAN consider the terms NPO has offered to be unacceptable, so the war goes on. Why did this need a thread on the OWF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Simply put there is no reason for Fark/FAN to have admit their entry was a mistake. It wasn't except on a military readiness/planning level. I'm not sure why Fark should have to admit their own lack of military preparation was a mistake to an external party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1327016964' post='2903122'] I'm a few pages behind now, but 'log dumping' is low class not because IRC logs have some magic quality that makes it so, but because posting any information that the other party had a reasonable expectation would remain confidential is a low class move. That's one reason why alliance members feel so betrayed when someone leaks things from their forums. [/quote] Usually I would agree, but in this case I'd argue that tf905 lost any claim to confidentiality when he threatened to log dump himself. You could say that Brehon just preempted him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1327019851' post='2903175'] Usually I would agree, but in this case I'd argue that tf905 lost any claim to confidentiality when he threatened to log dump himself. You could say that Brehon just preempted him [/quote] lol, preempt for a preempt, i see what you did there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) I'm not even an uncritical Fark lover or anything if you look at my other posts. Fark attacking NPO would have been awesome last year. Edited January 20, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote name='Caliph' timestamp='1327020094' post='2903182'] lol, preempt for a preempt, i see what you did there [/quote] I posted it in the propaganda thread and then wasn't going to post it again, but this quote made me. [IMG]http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv143/Hashentea/12122993.jpg[/IMG] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327017525' post='2903131'] There was no treaty justification for GATO to hit MHA either if we adopt your line. NPO must condemn that action as well if they wish to demand an apology for the attack on them by Fark. They must also condemn DH-Chestnut, DT/Rok/Legacy on CSN, and other preempts I haven't thought of. They must also condemn an attack on the New Polar Order without any traditional cassus belli. Oh wait. Their DoS explicitly stated that they would be involved in the war if it expanded past is initial combatants. The justification for the TOP/IRON declaration is that they were in the right to preempt C&G and that NpO was wrong for using it to peace out and later declare on them. Consequently, no preemptive attacks can be condemned. I was in #nsa the night Fark declared on NPO and Mary even said "we recognize this as a preemptive attack opening up a new front in the existing conflict." [/quote] Yep, I agree with this 100%. Very well stated. EDIT: This too: [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327019019' post='2903163'] Simply put there is no reason for Fark/FAN to have admit their entry was a mistake. It wasn't except on a military readiness/planning level. I'm not sure why Fark should have to admit their own lack of military preparation was a mistake to an external party. [/quote] Edited January 20, 2012 by Enamel32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1327020709' post='2903201'] I'm not even an uncritical Fark lover or anything if you look at my other posts. Fark attacking NPO would have been awesome last year. [/quote] Yes, we know ... everything is "awesome" when it's your idea. Maybe they just don't like you and didn't want to have anything to do with you. 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.