Dochartaigh Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 No, just his view, views vary in this, just as every other alliance. As he is not Government (nor I, for that matter), it remains to be seen how things will go. My own opinion, I have only recently come to NoR, but for me, I would rather be in an alliance which is prepared to stand by an ally to the bitter end, than in one of those that abandon allies in their hour of need. So, you just reiterate his views about how the story is now switching to NoR will not leave NG... I don't care who is gov, when did your gov start telling that store? Blaming us is easier Well, to be fair, no one is blaming NG. Just NoR who refuses to surrender despite being on the losing side. And yes, in this very thread we have basically seen NoR state they have never ever ever surrendered, despite bassman proving otherwise. It is stupid shit like that, that irks me and makes me want to ensure that the surrender sticks. This way NoR cannot e-lawyer shit later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 So, you just reiterate his views about how the story is now switching to NoR will not leave NG... I don't care who is gov, when did your gov start telling that store? Well, to be fair, no one is blaming NG. Just NoR who refuses to surrender despite being on the losing side. And yes, in this very thread we have basically seen NoR state they have never ever ever surrendered, despite bassman proving otherwise. It is stupid !@#$ like that, that irks me and makes me want to ensure that the surrender sticks. This way NoR cannot e-lawyer !@#$ later on. Firstly, our Government did not start that story, neither did I mention or say never. I was not in the alliance when the incident occurred so i am in no way qualified and therefore would not comment on it. Secondly, if it irks you shut up and wait for the Gov of NoR to make a statement, instead of grasping the every word of a foot soldier who is not privy to that kind of information in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 You could just get them both out. You guys have some little itty bitty control here as the winning coalition. "NG, you're out. NoR, you're out. Let's sign this !@#$ and move on." Or alternatively, you can blame them. They're being offered a simultaneous peace. NG agreed to terms wording, NoR does not agree. We simply await NoR agreeing to the language NG agreed to. No one needs to blame anyone, as this will probably work itself out. DoD is squeezing nothing. Few things unite people together against someone thAn refusing to use the word surrender. It worked out badly for NSO's pr, destroyed Rok's rep with many who may not have cared about their other actions, and will not help NoR long term. All this front is waiting on is an agreement to surrender, and hopefully NoR agrees to exit amicably alongside NG and doesn't continue to drag this out over language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 All this front is waiting on is an agreement to surrender, and hopefully NoR agrees to exit amicably alongside NG and doesn't continue to drag this out over language. Again, shifting the blame. If it's just 'language' than take the high road and say "sign this shit and get the hell out of our face." Do you really need it so badly? Will your war efforts be entirely undone? Somehow, I feel doubtful of this. Just a feeling. You just want it so you'll stick it out and blame them till you get it. What's wrong with an 'admission of defeat' that's been offered? It's just language that you are holding them in war over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes it does matter Rayvon, because everyone in this place is a PR machine, and personally I dont want to read about NoR saying how they didnt lose the last war, even tho they were absolutely crushed. You should be well aware of this type of this PR strategy since NSO is one of the masters of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 As to the queue quote, yes at 53 I may not be able to use it properly. But unlike you I can spell and understand English grammar (not bad for a Prussian/Scot) ... I'd like to point out in response that for many people communicating through this forum, English is not a first, or even a second, language. Even among native speakers, the extent of education held varies, without even accounting for personal distraction, fatigue, the effects of medication, intoxication, or personal disability. Krashnaia is of course guilty of similar disregard when poking fun at your use of the quote function, but to a far lesser degree, given the harshness of your response.With regard to the utility of spell-checking or word prediction software, I should point out that rouge ends up being discussed here far more frequently than is entirely appropriate. Nordreich has never in its history surrendered as an individual alliance ... This is particularly petty in light of the fact that this topic is about TLR surrendering individually to numerous alliances, more than one of which is a current ally, recent wartime ally, or at least a close ally of a current ally.If I had to judge by the public discussion, I'd say that Non Grata and The Last Remnants have generally been dealing with their situation with far more grace, dignity, and good humor than Nordreich has. Judging by other side discussions in the topic, I'd judge that I'm by far not the only person who's been given that impression - if that has in turn soured peace negotiations for your alliance far more than NG's or TLR's, with a largely similar group of opponents - it's not pd73bassman or even "commies" that should shoulder the blame but yourself and other Nordreich members who may have been giving your opponents a far more negative view of your alliance's conduct and attitude than necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes it does matter Rayvon, because everyone in this place is a PR machine, and personally I dont want to read about NoR saying how they didnt lose the last war, even tho they were absolutely crushed. You should be well aware of this type of this PR strategy since NSO is one of the masters of this. Absolutely crushed. If we were we would already have been forced to surrender. This has become a war of attrition, we have the resolve to continue if we must. From what I have been seeing from the messages many opponents have been sending our people, Many individuals in your coalition do not have that resolve. Certain alliances (not yours) also seem rather inadequate in the pursuit of war.. Before the usual wise-cracks about everyone hiding in peace mode. Call it what you will, we call it re-equipping and re arming for the next round. We are resolved to fight on until our leadership says it is time to call it a day, until then business as usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Yes it does matter Rayvon, because everyone in this place is a PR machine, and personally I dont want to read about NoR saying how they didnt lose the last war, even tho they were absolutely crushed. You should be well aware of this type of this PR strategy since NSO is one of the masters of this. Not even MK's PR machine in their prime could spin an admission of defeat into a win or non-loss, it's a defeat in it's very core meaning - geez, it's right in the specific wording. "Admission of defeat" "We admit we lost" .... Pick a better argument for it if that's your defence to the language of it. They're not asking DoD for a White Peace which then, sure if you wanna fear that boogeyman, could later be spun as a non-loss. That reason there really just insists it's about pride, why you can't make that language shift from 'surrender' to 'admission of defeat' .. Not saying it's not necessarily about pride in return, but it's definitely a two-way street and it can't all be put on one set of shoulders. Edited February 8, 2014 by Rayvon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I'd like to point out in response that for many people communicating through this forum, English is not a first, or even a second, language. Even among native speakers, the extent of education held varies, without even accounting for personal distraction, fatigue, the effects of medication, intoxication, or personal disability. Krashnaia is of course guilty of similar disregard when poking fun at your use of the quote function, but to a far lesser degree, given the harshness of your response. With regard to the utility of spell-checking or word prediction software, I should point out that rouge ends up being discussed here far more frequently than is entirely appropriate. I have to be honest here, the reason for my response was due to the fact that he basically inferred I was too stupid to understand how queue (or to use the proper term Quote) is used, when the poster himself exhibited a lack of knowledge of the English language. Oh yes, I myself was not exactly sober when i did my Quote, a long business trip and a few (too many) good Germany beers did not help. Perhaps the lesson was one of, do not deride the education or intelligence of another, when you yourself are far from perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Absolutely crushed. If we were we would already have been forced to surrender. Oh I agree, if you don't believe you have lost then by all means it is our side's duty to prove it to you, and you should not surrender. However, If you believe you are better than your enemies and do not wish to surrender to lessors as one person indicated in this thread, consider what you are implying about friends and allies. If you feel that your damage output indicates victory, consider how it was spread minimally across the many people fighting you. Yes you will continue to inflict pain on your enemies, but that pain will feel like a bee sting to any individual while you continue getting hit over the head with a sledgehammer, if you aren't hiding under a rock wallowing in economic collapse. You were never a primary target in this war, so no one has any desire to continue observing the devastation this war has brought you. You were , however, an enemy at war , and our side's simple requirement is that you say you surrender, or else as you indicate in your own belief, how else would we be able to tell the outcome of this war ? As to the silly argument that asking for a word is silly and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for petty behavior, I too believe that it's silly and petty. However as long as we feel that we are the victorious party, and due to the fact that our pettiness is no greater than your own, that argument won't sway us. Kudos to TLR for agreeing to a separate peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Not being in TLR, I would not know their reasons, other than they did the best thing for their own alliance. As I have said before, I am sure when the time comes the Government of NoR will make the decisions which are best for our alliance. In the meantime, I am a soldier, and will fight until ordered to stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Not being in TLR, I would not know their reasons, other than they did the best thing for their own alliance. As I have said before, I am sure when the time comes the Government of NoR will make the decisions which are best for our alliance. In the meantime, I am a soldier, and will fight until ordered to stop TLR peaced out for the same reason that ODN peaced out, and NSO peaced out, and so on: their ally's own peace agreement was contingent (by the request of that ally) on the end of those fronts, and thus there was nothing gained from holding out. You aren't an ally of NPO, and you don't owe them anything, but NG are. You're aren't doing them any favours in preventing the end of the war because you find the word 'surrender' icky, as the remaining options -- NPO keeps fighting until you cave, extending the duration of their terms, or peaces out leaving yourselves and NG on the field -- are both ugly, leaving NG in the unenviable position of having to screw over one ally or another. And yes, you will cave (because you have absolutely no leverage here), or you'll get a pointless 'compromise' where DoD has to write the word surrender in white text in the agreement so that you can pretend it isn't there, hard won at the price not just of your own pixels, but likely your ally's position with a close partner of theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 TLR peaced out for the same reason that ODN peaced out, and NSO peaced out, and so on: their ally's own peace agreement was contingent (by the request of that ally) on the end of those fronts, and thus there was nothing gained from holding out. You aren't an ally of NPO, and you don't owe them anything, but NG are. You're aren't doing them any favours in preventing the end of the war because you find the word 'surrender' icky, as the remaining options -- NPO keeps fighting until you cave, extending the duration of their terms, or peaces out leaving yourselves and NG on the field -- are both ugly, leaving NG in the unenviable position of having to screw over one ally or another. And yes, you will cave (because you have absolutely no leverage here), or you'll get a pointless 'compromise' where DoD has to write the word surrender in white text in the agreement so that you can pretend it isn't there, hard won at the price not just of your own pixels, but likely your ally's position with a close partner of theirs. I am not Government, so I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors, so until things are clear, a reminder; As I have said before, I am sure when the time comes the Government of NoR will make the decisions which are best for our alliance. In the meantime, I am a soldier, and will fight until ordered to stop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I am not Government, so I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors, so until things are clear, a reminder; You can be a mindless soldier, or you can actually attempt to do something good for your alliance. Either way, I don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I am not Government, so I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors, so until things are clear, a reminder; You are a soldier caught up in machinations beyond your control. Do you use IRC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I am not Government, so I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors, so until things are clear, a reminder; No doubt. However, 'what is best for the alliance' can have multiple answers depending on the time frame you're looking at. In the moment, this might be the right decision: NoR members are no doubt happy with their refusal to surrender to DoD. But unless they're expecting a palace coup if/when they surrender, that short-term gain is likely to recede quickly, while long-term they're wagering whatever goodwill NoR enjoys with quite a few parties...NG, NPO, NPO's allies, and even those against whom NoR currently fights. Win the battle (and, again, you're desperately unlikely to even win that), lose the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Just a reminder that if DoD and their allies are really worried about PR, they've done a piss poor job of maintaining it this war. Between treaties popping out of nowhere, refusing to acknowledge share of blame in jut about any process, etc. this war has been terribly managed from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Again, shifting the blame. If it's just 'language' than take the high road and say "sign this !@#$ and get the hell out of our face." Do you really need it so badly? Will your war efforts be entirely undone? Somehow, I feel doubtful of this. Just a feeling. You just want it so you'll stick it out and blame them till you get it. What's wrong with an 'admission of defeat' that's been offered? It's just language that you are holding them in war over. When we lose, we surrender, when we win, we expect them. No one remembers people asking for surrenders, because its something that is universally accepted as being a proper way to end a war cleanly. Everyone remembers the people who refused to surrender, because of how badly it ends up for them. I have no desire to see NoR and NG find themselves in war any longer than this, but surrendering is not something that is an evil term, and is something that can rightfully be expected from a defeated party. This also has everything to do with how they've handled themselves very publicly on the matter. It doesn't matter to me, because there was no way any front we were on was ending without a surrender, but it does matter to a lot of people who do have a vested interest in this front. Having a basic level of respect for the people you are dealing with on a front goes a long way. If you want to have your goals met, either earn them on the battlefield, or earn them through treating your opponent with enough respect to make them want to grant any specific requests you have for wording, etc. NoR chose not to do that, and chose to be pretty darn disrespectful of pretty much everyone outside of NG through this process. The front loses its desire to see NoR's wishes met when they get treated with that level of disrespect, specifically how NoR has decided to treat DoD, Int, and others during this process, singling them out publicly and privately as their "lessers" and as such, someone they won't surrender to. They brought their grudges into this situation, and what they've found is that people don't want to deal with a Ramlins or Rok situation, and simply will wait them out. Edited February 8, 2014 by Goldie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 You could just get them both out. You guys have some little itty bitty control here as the winning coalition. "NG, you're out. NoR, you're out. Let's sign this !@#$ and move on." Or alternatively, you can blame them. Someone from NoR has already said they are fine if NG and NoR surrender together, so just go from there guys. Sign a surrender together. Are they going to do that right away? No because I think they want to play victim a little longer because for a losing nation to admit defeat is such a harsh term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 Someone from NoR has already said they are fine if NG and NoR surrender together, so just go from there guys. Sign a surrender together. Are they going to do that right away? No because I think they want to play victim a little longer because for a losing nation to admit defeat is such a harsh term.NoR has offered to admit defeat but not surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoADarthCyfe6 Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Good lord, why are these multiple abominations of threads still going at this point? They are so far derailed, it's ridiculous. I guess TLR, ODN, and US's peace terms didn't involve granting peace of mind. Edited February 8, 2014 by SoADarthCyfe6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 NoR has offered to admit defeat but not surrender.Whatever, to me its the same thing and I am not the only one who believes this: This is precisely the scenario being offered. Glad we could come to a peace agreement! We'll iron out the details now on IRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I mean just do this for the surrender document: "Surrender = admit defeat" We, NG and NoR, agree to surrender as defined above Sigs for NG Sigs for NoR Case closed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 That's not how these things work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) That's not how these things work.I know, its annoying to make things simple. E: its cool though, there are still plenty of NPO lower tier inactives with tech to play with so I am in no rush to end this. Edited February 8, 2014 by Hamilmania 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.