jerdge Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) I don't in any way want to interfere with propaganda, but it may help some to have a short and effective resume to fall to when they're in doubt about what to call Terms of Peace. This post is meant to provide that help. Anyone is welcome to try help improve the following definitions (which, incidentally, are provided in a form similar to Popper's "right to left" definitions). • When parties at war agree to end their conflict, and they formalize the terms in which that's to happen, I call such agreement "Peace Terms". • When an aggressor also pays a defender I call such payment "(War) Reparations". • When a defender pays an aggressor it's a "(War) Ransom" (or "Indemnity", thanks Max) • When a party admits defeat (or "they surrender") the terms can (also) be called "Surrender Terms". • When all parties agree to the same limitations (if any) to their sovereignty it's "White Peace". It is notable that the mere absence of Reparations or of a Ransom/Indemnity does not mean that the Peace Terms can be properly called "White Peace". In my book it's not "White Peace" when some signatory accepts to limit their sovereignty to continue/start fighting against any party, while other signatories do not suffer an equivalent limitation. I rather call it a "Surrender". The above definitions are provided in the hope that we can have meaningful discussions over related topics without having to first discuss precedents or vocabulary definitions, and especially to stay clear of semantics brawls. Thanks in advance for your civilized and useful contributions, and for any constructive criticism. Source of inspiration: [spoiler] And, for reference, it is white peace even if the alliance is in the winning coalition. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80143 Gee, so you found like the one instance that fit it. Go look at all the other white peaces in past few wars and see if you see any of the "winners" also dropping out the war. [/spoiler] This OWF thread has been brought to you thanks to the efforts of JoshuaR's Foundation for the Equitable Treatment of Blogs and Threads (JoFEtreBloT). Everyone please join me in hailing JoshuaR and the JoFEtreBloT. Edited December 15, 2013 by jerdge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 Thank you, I agree completely. It always confused me why white peace meant something different here when one "Surrendered". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omfghi2u2 Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) I have been here for some time but not very active so just bear with me. In prior mass wars, when the term "surrendered" was used, it often came with reparations, public apologies, etc. I remember the first term "white peace" was used in a peace thread and everyone applauded it and said that was respectable. So as reparations faded out, white peace was in. tl;dr - word association. -omfg Edited December 13, 2013 by omfghi2u2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 (edited) I have been here for some time but not very active so just bear with me. In prior mass wars, when the term "surrendered" was used, it often came with reparations, public apologies, etc. I remember the first term "white peace" was used in a peace thread and everyone applauded it and said that was respectable. So as reparations faded out, white peace was in. tl;dr - word association. -omfg Yes, but you're wrong. I am pretty sure his point is if you say you signed a white peace agreement with someone, one side doesn't surrender and agree not to enter again, while the other one can. He's saying it's still a surrender if you admit defeat and have to go by certain rules, not white peace. And I agree completely. White peace is basically saying "Let's stop and go on with our lives." and that isn't what most call White Peace on this forum. Edited December 13, 2013 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 Normally, a surrender is one party admitting defeat openly and agreeing to whatever (if any other) conditions the winning party put forward. A white peace is a peace where both parties agree to a status quo ante bellum, without any terms. A peace agreement with terms of whatever sort that has no defined winner is just that, a peace agreement. Whether it is reparations or ransom is mostly up to how you want to see it and has little clear definition. Payments will almost always be called reparations by the party instituting them, even if it is the aggressor and the history of the term shows it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 I agree on white peace and surrender. To me, white peace is a true draw. • When a defender pays an aggressor it's a "(War) Ransom". Historically, this has been called "indemnity". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 Leave it to a neutral to hit the nail on the head so squarely, I always hated when no re-entries get appended to a 'white peace' .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 But it's like...beige. It's really close to white...like the color of Rota's wedding dress...obviously THAT can't be white - but we can get it pretty damn close! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 I endorse the adoption of this standardized set of terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 "White peace" is the Alford plea (I'm not saying I did it, but I'm still pleading guilty because you'll probably convict me anyway) of CN. People attach a lot of importance to the word surrender to the point that it becomes a sticking point in peace negotiations whether the term is used, even if all other terms are identical. As long as that is the case, CN will use its own definition of white peace because that definition is more useful than the "real" one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Leave it to a neutral to hit the nail on the head so squarely, I always hated when no re-entries get appended to a 'white peace' .. Agreed! Unless, as the OP said, both sides have a similar clause. "White peace" is the Alford plea (I'm not saying I did it, but I'm still pleading guilty because you'll probably convict me anyway) of CN. People attach a lot of importance to the word surrender to the point that it becomes a sticking point in peace negotiations whether the term is used, even if all other terms are identical. As long as that is the case, CN will use its own definition of white peace because that definition is more useful than the "real" one. I don't think so. White peace is essentially saying "There is no winner." Surrender indicates there was a winner, which is why it is a sticking point. If one side is forced to accept terms the other side isn't, it is a surrender no matter what you call it. Echelon makes it easy -- they will only offer and accept white peace to my knowledge. Interesting attempt at class, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Wisdom, jerdge, wisdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Echelon makes it easy -- they will only offer and accept white peace to my knowledge. Interesting attempt at class, I think. While this is true, we've really just assumed the old traditional CN definition of White Peace. It would really be unrealistic to stand by a 100% White Peace (As defined by Jerdge) doctrine in CN. Though now that I think about it, probably the only thing we could agree to would be the word "surrender" and the standard no-reentry clause, as STA received when they peaced out with NADC and everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Agreed! Unless, as the OP said, both sides have a similar clause. I don't think so. White peace is essentially saying "There is no winner." Surrender indicates there was a winner, which is why it is a sticking point. If one side is forced to accept terms the other side isn't, it is a surrender no matter what you call it. Echelon makes it easy -- they will only offer and accept white peace to my knowledge. Interesting attempt at class, I think. I'm not seeing where you're disagreeing with me except that I acknowledge that CN has never used that definition of white peace and has always called "surrender without reparations or using the word surrender" white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) I think the CN neologism of a surrender with the term of no-re-entry is "grey peace", you don't have to pay reps or take any other actions, but you have surrendered and had a term imposed on you, however light. Edited December 14, 2013 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrJLa Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) "White peace" is the Alford plea (I'm not saying I did it, but I'm still pleading guilty because you'll probably convict me anyway) of CN. People attach a lot of importance to the word surrender to the point that it becomes a sticking point in peace negotiations whether the term is used, even if all other terms are identical. As long as that is the case, CN will use its own definition of white peace because that definition is more useful than the "real" one. I agree with this. This is politics, not algebra. You can't construct a proof of what an agreement constitutes. "What we will call it" is as much a negotiating point as anything else. "We've come to an agreement that these are even terms, and neither side will call it a victory" is white peace. Especially if you look at STA, who wants out because their only interest was standing by TPF. Agreeing not to re-enter is hardly a concession for them at all, while Polar agreeing to stop fighting would have been a very unequal concession. STA is checking out because they have no interest in the continuing conflict, not because they couldn't stand to continue fighting if the circumstances were different. It's an even deal that doesn't represent surrender. EDIT: To put it another way, I think if calling it a victory had no value to Polar, and being able to re-enter had no value to STA, it was an even trade. Edited December 14, 2013 by BrJLa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 This OWF thread has been brought to you thanks to the efforts of JoshuaR's Foundation for the Equitable Treatment of Blogs and Threads (JoFEtreBloT). Everyone please join me in hailing JoshuaR and the JoFEtreBloT. Thank you, and thank admin that there are threads like this mixed in with the hundreds of Rank This thread/polls. Re the post, it's all semantics and it doesn't matter. You could say both sides are correct. I agree fundamentally and would tend to think of white peace as both sides just calling it a day and stopping their fighting with no other terms or concessions involved. It's still correct, however, if two alliances agree to stop fighting each other, to say they made a white peace with one another. Now, one side may still impose on the other that they cannot re-enter the global war elsewhere. This doesn't take away from the white peace between the respective alliances, so the term in my mind is still okay if people want to call it that. I hope this isn't an issue for me, though. When I win, I want people to say they lost and will be happy to keep squeezing until they do. If they don't believe they have lost, then they haven't lost. It is then my job to prove it to them. Therefore, I don't like using the term "white peace" at all. I'd rather say "X surrenders to Umbrella and will refrain from aiding, militarily or financially, any alliances currently at war." It fits the CN definition of white peace in the sense that we'll no longer fight each other and we don't have to pay each other and we don't have to delete lumber camps and barracks, and all that jazz, but I like to see people squirm at least enough to admit what utter failures they were by my hand. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogal Dorn Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Leave it to a neutral to hit the nail on the head so squarely, I always hated when no re-entries get appended to a 'white peace' .. agreed. Edited December 14, 2013 by Rogal Dorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icewolf Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 White Peace/Surrender has a very distinct implication in CN. Because admitting defeat (no matter how well you fought) is such a taboo and performance in wars is analysed to death, people want a white peace. Surrender is seen as a humiliation. So White Peace gets used by the victors to denote those they do not want to humiliate, in effect a declaration that the war was one of short term tactical necessity and not a long term strategic goal. Those that they wanted to eradicate get asked to surrender. This has essentially become the norm in CN because everyone expects to eventually chain into the losing side. So everyone wants to make sure that when it is there turn they get to have the white peace label rather than the surrender. Result? Well expect various people to use their white peace label with pride, despite the fact that they barely went through the motions of fighting "because it was necessary" and offered peace almost immediately after the announcement despite being inactive for days. I appreciate that is not all alliances or even all members of certain alliances or even a majority, but it does seem to me that increasingly people care more about their rating on an arbitrary scale of OWF "wording" than actually standing their ground and fighting it out. "Yay....I launched no attacks for a week but was active enough to immediately nail home my peace offer...but it was a white peace not a surrender so I can hold my head high." /vomits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Agreed! Unless, as the OP said, both sides have a similar clause. Yes - but find me a "white peace" that contains two no re-entry clauses .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Yes - but find me a "white peace" that contains two no re-entry clauses .... Not hard. You should specify that the clauses have to apply to alliances on different sides. (Actually, I'm pretty sure I could find that, too, but it is exceedingly rare). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Not hard. You should specify that the clauses have to apply to alliances on different sides. lol true enough(Actually, I'm pretty sure I could find that, too, but it is exceedingly rare). Aye - the rarity was part of the point, it's not a light task to go find examples among the incorrectly labelled 'white peace's .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) lol true enough Aye - the rarity was part of the point, it's not a light task to go find examples among the incorrectly labelled 'white peace's .. No, You were just wrong. There have been plenty of pure white peaces. Edited December 14, 2013 by Rotavele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 I agree pretty much entirely with the OP, but I refer to "Ransom" a bit more bluntly: It's "Extortion." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted December 15, 2013 Report Share Posted December 15, 2013 Here's my problem with peace terms other than cessation of hostilities: they're boring. Peace terms bind not only the alliance that is subject to them (henceforth known as the "loser") but the alliance that is holding them subject to them as well (the "winner"). The loser has to do all kinds of not so fun things like cancel treaties, decommission nukes, keep military at near nonexistent levels, send obscene levels of money and tech, and - in the bad old days - accept a viceroy. The winner doesn't have to do that stuff but, here's the part that always gets to me, they have to make sure that the loser does that stuff. They have to monitor troop levels, aid slots, and nuke counts which can take a long time to do. Plus, while they're dealing with the peace terms, neither the loser or the winner has time to do what really keeps this world turning: rebuild their nations, build new relationships, and lay the groundwork for the next war. This results in stasis not only in the political environment of this planet but also within the individual losing alliances themselves as some members decide to call it quits and leave the planet entirely because they didn't come here to send money to people who hate them. The winning alliances experience as similar stasis as those who aren't into nation building may wonder why they're building nations they don't ever use. They may also lose members who resign because they don't understand why their alliance is enforcing peace terms that last longer than the war. In general, I tend to think that anything that gets people back out onto the field again quicker is good and anything that ties them up longer is bad. Everyone wants their pound of flesh but it's much more fun to extract it at war than through peace terms. 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.