Imperial Decree - DoW

[Crymson]

I'm disappointed that nobody responded to my clear PotY.

 

Years of Crymson's postings.  That's enough for me.

 

It's funny how all these people who don't know me come out of the woodwork when they feel tough. Well, thanks for the shout out.

[Crymson]

Please, PLEASE respond to my bait!

 

I fixed it for you.

[Link Gaetz]

I'm disappointed that nobody responded to my clear PotY.

 

 

It's funny how all these people who don't know me come out of the woodwork when they feel tough. Well, thanks for the shout out.

I know you from your years of posting on here quite regularly, 2,385 by the counter.  Not a fan of your posting.  TOP is better represented by what are typically more reasoned voices in folks like Yevgeni and Feanor.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

So basically this is what happened:

 

1. Equilibrium alliances come to TOP to discuss peace

2. NPO declares war on TOP so that AI is represented in the peace talks

3. TOP members laugh at NPO needing to exert control over their allies

4. Idiots accuse TOP of whining and secret plotting

[Caliph]

Hey look, I'm fodder!

 

I enjoy the consistent attempts by members of the other coalition to paint themselves as somehow "better" merely because they're outnumbered. I never realised that diplomatic failure of that degree could be trophied as being meritorious. But I suppose we all have different goals here on Planet Bob, and if you take pride in the fact that you can't seem to sign a treaty worth the paper it's written on, then all the more power to you.

There was no diplomatic failure though.  Your side wanted to roll us and no amount of diplomacy would have changed that. 

 

What is hilarious is that you needed NPO to come in to make sure your side didn't make a peace with TOP before you were ready. 

 

Some coalition you have there ...

[Master Holton]

 

TOP is better represented by what are typically more reasoned voices in folks like Yevgeni

 

LOL. Good show. Best quote of the thread right there.

[Crymson]

I know you from your years of posting on here quite regularly, 2,385 by the counter.  Not a fan of your posting.  TOP is better represented by what are typically more reasoned voices in folks like Yevgeni and Feanor.

 

It's fortunate that I couldn't care less about your opinion.

[Crymson]

nice to see you're original and quoted Tosh, better luck next time

 

You're horribly, horribly off base.

 

Kids these days...

Edited March 4, 2013 by Crymson

[HalfEmpty]

It's fortunate that I couldn't care less about your opinion.

Why is it fortunate?

Else you would take what action?

[Aeternos Astramora]

So basically this is what happened:

 

1. Equilibrium alliances come to TOP to discuss peace

2. NPO declares war on TOP so that AI is represented in the peace talks

3. TOP members laugh at NPO needing to exert control over their allies

4. Idiots accuse TOP of whining and secret plotting

 

TOP still thinks that NPO declared because of anything to do with peace talks?

[Ardus]

TOP still thinks that NPO declared because of anything to do with peace talks?

[16:00] <&Brehon[NPO]> We are putting an official DoW up against TOP today.

 

Oh, hey, that was right classy of him to give us forewarnin...

 

[16:01] <&Brehon[NPO]> Clerical clean up and to be sure, quite frankly those fighting on your front aren't alone when it comes to negotiations

 

lol

Edited March 4, 2013 by Ardus

[Vladimir Stukov II]

TOP still thinks that NPO declared because of anything to do with peace talks?

You are still posting while having no idea what you are talking about?

[Feanor Noldorin]

TOP still thinks that NPO declared because of anything to do with peace talks?

I'm sure they are there to assist your beleaguered nations but you can't deny that part of this is because they think we'll trick you poor little kids into surrendering to us.

 

I wanted to make sure Coalition leadership was there

Edited March 4, 2013 by Feanor Noldorin

[ChairmanHal]

[16:00] <&Brehon[NPO]> We are putting an official DoW up against TOP today.

 

Oh, hey, that was right classy of him to give us forewarnin...

 

[16:01] <&Brehon[NPO]> Clerical clean up and to be sure, quite frankly those fighting on your front aren't alone when it comes to negotiations

 

lol

 

Shame on Brehon for pointing out that since NPO would be entering the front they would naturally also want to be included at the negotiation table, shame!  :rolleyes:

 

Actually, NPO may have done you a favor.  You'll figure out why later.

[Simon De Montfort]

Shame on Brehon for pointing out that since NPO would be entering the front they would naturally also want to be included at the negotiation table, shame!  :rolleyes:

 

Actually, NPO may have done you a favor.  You'll figure out why later.

So does "Clerical clean up" mean something military in your coalition?

 

 

Also let me reiterate for those with reading difficulties. We aren't mad at the NPO. We are laughing at those that attacked us because the NPO is needed to keep them in line.

[Letum]

Also let me reiterate for those with reading difficulties. We aren't mad at the NPO. We are laughing at those that attacked us because the NPO is needed to keep them in line.

You aren't mad at the NPO, you are just trying to portray us as an evil totalitarian alliance that seeks to act against the interest of its coalition partners by "controlling" them, thus trying to drive a wedge between the various groups as a whole.

[Centurius]

So does "Clerical clean up" mean something military in your coalition?
 
 
Also let me reiterate for those with reading difficulties. We aren't mad at the NPO. We are laughing at those that attacked us because the NPO is needed to keep them in line.

Well Simon, the small dogs are always the loudest.
 
Edit:
 
 

You aren't mad at the NPO, you are just trying to portray us as an evil totalitarian alliance that seeks to act against the interest of its coalition partners by "controlling" them, thus trying to drive a wedge between the various groups as a whole.

 
Well if the shoe fits. Edited March 4, 2013 by Centurius

[Simon De Montfort]

You aren't mad at the NPO, you are just trying to portray us as an evil totalitarian alliance that seeks to act against the interest of its coalition partners by "controlling" them, thus trying to drive a wedge between the various groups as a whole.

I haven't never used the words 'evil' or 'totalitarian' in describing the NPO in this thread.

 

I wish someone would respond to what I'm saying in this thread instead of making up stuff I DON'T say and responding to that.

[Simon De Montfort]

Well Simon, the small dogs are always the loudest.

I take offense to that my war French Bulldog is small and quiet .... well except when she snores and grunts and .... oh never mind.

[Letum]

I haven't never used the words 'evil' or 'totalitarian' in describing the NPO in this thread.
 
I wish someone would respond to what I'm saying in this thread instead of making up stuff I DON'T say and responding to that.

"You" is a plural pronoun that refers to the overall line your alliance and coalition is pursuing in this thread. It's how debates get structured here. Get used to it.

If you don't like your party line then go talk to your damn party. We aren't having a civil one-on-one discource in some coffee-shop, we're having a spirited political "war of words" between two opposing groups. You don't get the benefit of individualism and separate lines of debate when the discussion criss-crosses between dozens of different people with a multiplicity of points to make.

[Simon De Montfort]

"You" is a plural pronoun that refers to the overall line your alliance and coalition is pursuing in this thread. It's how debates get structured here. Get used to it.

If you don't like your party line then go talk to your damn party. We aren't having a civil one-on-one discource in some coffee-shop, we're having a spirited political "war of words" between two opposing groups. You don't get the benefit of individualism and separate lines of debate when the discussion criss-crosses between dozens of different people with a multiplicity of points to make.

Well considering you quoted my post I assumed you were talking to me. But still I don't think any other Paradoxian has called the NPO 'evil' or 'totalitarian' either.

 

I understand we are having a literal war of words here. But it's still a good idea to respond to actual points made than attacking strawmen.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Simon De Montfort

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Just because NPO is trying to take control of our front doesn't mean we are mad at them.

[Letum]

Well considering you quoted my post I assumed you were talking to me. But still I don't think any other Paradoxian has called the NPO 'evil' or 'totalitarian' either.
 
I understand we are having a literal war of words here. But it's still a good idea to respond to actual points made than attacking strawmen.

Strawmen? Alright, let's examine this.

Are you alleging that the party line that has been promoted here by TOP is not:

1) Accusing the NPO of trying to forcefully impose its will on other members of the coalition
2) Accusing the coalition alliances of being client states of the Pacific

And by implication from the above two:

3) That this alleged combination of high authoritarianism and extensive controlling of other people's actions is a system that is commonly defined as "Totalitarianism"
4) That the various insinuations made above imply a type of behaviour that would be regarded as morally contemptible in your average, liberal and freedom orientated cultural society that most of us would consider ourselves to be part of.

[Bob Ilyani]

"You" is a plural pronoun that refers to the overall line your alliance and coalition is pursuing in this thread. It's how debates get structured here. Get used to it.

If you don't like your party line then go talk to your damn party. We aren't having a civil one-on-one discource in some coffee-shop, we're having a spirited political "war of words" between two opposing groups. You don't get the benefit of individualism and separate lines of debate when the discussion criss-crosses between dozens of different people with a multiplicity of points to make.

Fantastic job creating an entire strongly-worded, angry post with a remarkable vacancy of substance. Vladimir may not be around any more, but his legacy is in safe hands with the current crop of Pacificans.

 

As an aside, I don't think any of us are actually full on stating that NPO are totalitarian, evil monsters. Hell, it doesn't matter whether they are or not, as they won't have anything to exert hegemony over after this war. We're simply pointing out the evident complete lack of faith by Pacifica in their own coalition-mates and allies.

 

Or, alternatively, I'm wrong, and Pacifica is totally fine with their allies heading their end of the peace talks with TOP. In that case, this DoW is meaningless, and that assertion would go against Brehon's statements in this thread and to Paradoxian government.

 

So, we have two options here: Either Pacifica has little to no confidence in the negotiation abilities of their coalition mates, or their Emperor is a liar. Given Brehon's aversion to being called one in the past, I have a feeling it isn't the latter. Meaning that the only thing we've really cleared up here is that Equilibrium, despite branding itself as a popular movement, is under the restrictive influence of a few alliances at the top, who would presumably be wielding influence at peace talks in order to strengthen their post-war position in the event of a victory. Pacifica may not be totalitarian, evil monsters, but controlling the peace terms of a dozen alliances is certainly a totalitarian, evil monster-ish thing to do.

[Letum]

Fantastic job creating an entire strongly-worded, angry post with a remarkable vacancy of substance. Vladimir may not be around any more, but his legacy is in safe hands with the current crop of Pacificans.

My apologies. I have made the assumption that most people are familiar with how forum debates tend to work on a practical level (considering we have participated in them for ages) and that therefore I did not need to go into any particular depth about why the various "ideas" that each poster is promoting are usually not structured in terms of a lengthy discussion between two individuals but towards the wider context of the two specific set of "party lines" each side is pursuing.

If you would like me to further expand on how that process works I would be more than happy to do so.

As an aside, I don't think any of us are actually full on stating that NPO are totalitarian, evil monsters. Hell, it doesn't matter whether they are or not, as they won't have anything to exert hegemony over after this war. We're simply pointing out the evident complete lack of faith by Pacifica in their own coalition-mates and allies.

I have made this point before, but I would like to make it again. What precisely do we have no faith over? Please, illustrate to me the theoretical "bad case scenario" that we are trying to avoid.

I mean, seriously. If you are postulating that we do not trust our people, then that implies we are afraid they will take some peace agreement that we do not like. However, the peace agreement that you offered to them was 1) The most lenient piece possible that does not involve TOP's surrender and 2) Was rejected.

So, if they have already rejected the most "tempting" "worst case scenario", and there is no other possible way of TOP giving a more attractive offer without surrendering, then there isn't really any possibility of a "bad scenario" happening, unless you are suggesting they will backtrack on what they rejected a few days ago.

But please, if you see some other eventuality that we are trying to avoid, let me know.

Or, alternatively, I'm wrong, and Pacifica is totally fine with their allies heading their end of the peace talks with TOP. In that case, this DoW is meaningless, and that assertion would go against Brehon's statements in this thread and to Paradoxian government.
 
So, we have two options here: Either Pacifica has little to no confidence in the negotiation abilities of their coalition mates, or their Emperor is a liar. Given Brehon's aversion to being called one in the past, I have a feeling it isn't the latter. Meaning that the only thing we've really cleared up here is that Equilibrium, despite branding itself as a popular movement, is under the restrictive influence of a few alliances at the top, who would presumably be wielding influence at peace talks in order to strengthen their post-war position in the event of a victory.

Setting up two alternatives, disproving one of them, and then pretending the other one is somehow "the only possible option" because everything else is excluded? That's a pretty twisted false dilemma strategy.

There are quite obviously never just "two options". Hell, considering how much energy you guys have devoted in this thread claiming that the coalition sucks and they need more help to take on the "awesome TOP", I am surprised you didn't sneak that in there.

Pacifica may not be totalitarian, evil monsters, but controlling the peace terms of a dozen alliances is certainly a totalitarian, evil monster-ish thing to do.

This is a bit like saying that people die when they are killed.