Announcement From the War Front On TLR

[Feanor Noldorin]

NoR has offered to admit defeat but not surrender.

That's just stupid.

[Neo Uruk]

That's just stupid.

apparently both sides find it a huge leap or there would be peace by now.

[Rayvon]

When we lose, we surrender, when we win, we expect them ... because its something that is universally accepted as being a proper way to end a war cleanly.

So why aren't you angry with Brehon for not making your surrender in Dave? You guys seem pissy and angry over so much else of what he did, and how he did everything so wrong. I guess this is just another example at how evil and incompetent he and NPO are in their disrespectful endings. Let the anger flow. And then remember it has nothing to do with NoR.

Of course, there's a lot of ambiguity in the Equilibrium way, Brehon said "admit their defeat and surrender to their respective combatants" so I guess that one just what - gets played however you wish to play it in the moment to defend your means and ends?

We won't get into your third loss, we all remember how GCW ended and it wasn't with a surrender; but it also wasn't forced on us either, Ardus made the choice to disband versus moving colour spheres.

So really, as far as your 'we give them, we expect them' argument goes, you really just expect them - as you say in your next paragraph, no way any front you're on is ending in any other way. Edited February 8, 2014 by Rayvon

[Prodigal Moon]

I have to admit, I can see the difference between defeat and surrender. Defeat can be construed just to refer to the objective circumstances of the balance of forces. Surrender is purposeful act that involves giving up and  abandoning one's sovereignty to the mercy of another.

 

Of course, if you can already admit defeat, you'd have to be pretty damn stubborn (or suicidal) to still refuse to surrender. There's a weird sort of disconnect there. Or maybe they're just counting on mercy sparing their egos from taking that final step, even though they have no hope of changing the nature of the situation.

[Gibsonator21]

 

You know I personally think NoR is being silly here, and should accept the surrender and end the war.

 

However, I would simply like to comment that the bravado coming from you is comical at best. I cannot wait to see how much you and your alliance cries when the tables are turned.

Me either. Chim will shit his pants, I can't wait!

[conistonslim]

Nor will admit defeat but won't surrender? If true this is the height of stupidity. I have never understood why this a sticking point for some alliances, honestly can someone explain to me why a defeated party would admit defeat but not surrender? Nor you have stood by your allies against overwhelming odds and I commend you for your efforts. But this foolish "we won't surrender" is hurting your reputation and more importantly your allies. You came in to help your allies so do the right thing when your allies need it the most, swallow your pride, surrender and get your friends and allies peace.

[The Zigur]

If you don't want to surrender in the future, don't fight alongside neo-imperialists. How can there be stability if there are no consequences from your actions?

[Luckao]

Maybe you'll bring stability by boring everybody to sleep, Gandhi.

[WarriorSoul]

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.

/me slow claps

[The Zigur]

Maybe you'll bring stability by boring everybody to sleep, Gandhi.

 

Stability is not the absence of war, but rather, the removal of uncertainty from war. It can be quite fun.

[Stefano Palmieri]

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.

The elders say that once upon a time these threads had nought to do with NG or NoR.

[Luckao]

 

Stability is not the absence of war, but rather, the removal of uncertainty from war. It can be quite fun.

 

If you ever say something interesting, I'm going to throw a party.

[Stewie]

The elders say that once upon a time these threads had nought to do with NG or NoR.

 

The entire war is to do with NG, why should your peace thread be any different...  :blush:

[Dochartaigh]

 

The entire war is to do with NG, why should your peace thread be any different...  :blush:

 

Wait, I thought the entire war had to do with NoR, no wait, it was NPO wasn't it? Or possibly NSO? :P

[Goldie]

So why aren't you angry with Brehon for not making your surrender in Dave? You guys seem pissy and angry over so much else of what he did, and how he did everything so wrong. I guess this is just another example at how evil and incompetent he and NPO are in their disrespectful endings. Let the anger flow. And then remember it has nothing to do with NoR.

Of course, there's a lot of ambiguity in the Equilibrium way, Brehon said "admit their defeat and surrender to their respective combatants" so I guess that one just what - gets played however you wish to play it in the moment to defend your means and ends?

We won't get into your third loss, we all remember how GCW ended and it wasn't with a surrender; but it also wasn't forced on us either, Ardus made the choice to disband versus moving colour spheres.

So really, as far as your 'we give them, we expect them' argument goes, you really just expect them - as you say in your next paragraph, no way any front you're on is ending in any other way.

I think Dave is a special case, because our ally base was on the side of those who would be putting terms on us. Had they requested it of us, we might have haggled over it, but if we were told it was the bottom line for peace, we wouldn't have held up over the terminology. Obviously an alliance would prefer to have as little terms as possible placed on them, and I understand fully the morale effect some people may feel over it, and why people would rather not surrender. But the issue is that some alliances in history have made surrender the hill they will die on, which is unfortunate, because there are so many worthwhile things to blow political capital on, why make people lose respect for you over something as silly as not surrendering.

 

Surrendering is admitting defeat, but admitting defeat isn't necessarily surrendering. Surrender has more meaning, for both the victor and the defeated. I happen to think surrender is the bare minimum any truly victorious alliance should expect. Had NoR treated the people fighting it with a modicum of respect, then I'd have seen what I could have done to maybe lighten things up, and see if a more blanket surrender or admission of defeat would be acceptable. But really, all of my war experiences with NoR have been with them disrespecting their opponents. They were incredibly disrespectful to MW fighting them in PB-Polar, and mass-spammed MW's nations trying to saturate them with the kind of propaganda that would lead to their members deciding to bail, and the negotiation process was annoying at best. We've all seen how they've been publicly in this war. VE was WF's only MDP ally, and MW is comprised partially of ex-WF. NoR hit them in PB-Polar because they were the target that wouldn't bring any chains in. I'd imagine they had the same process this war, the "let's find a squishy target so we don't have to get hit hard". That blew up in their face, and now they seemingly don't believe that they could have lost to the "lesser" alliances they have on them. NoR's efforts in this war deserve respect, but their behavior washes it all away. Had they not been so public about how little they thought of the alliances that thoroughly beat them, then we could have considered something less. But they'll have to surrender now.

[CnaedmacAilpn]

why make people lose respect for you over something as silly as not surrendering.

 

 

For you it is, but I am sure when you are faced with admitting defeat or having to surrender you will sing a different tune

 

 

Surrendering is admitting defeat, but admitting defeat isn't necessarily surrendering. Surrender has more meaning, for both the victor and the defeated.

 

Surrendering is far more than admitting defeat it means you are subjugated and have submitted yourself to the will of another power, so yes it does mean an awful lot more to victor and conquered.  To put it into perspective, here is how the Oxford dictionary defines it;

 

Defeat: win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat.

Surrender; stop resisting to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority.

 

 

I happen to think surrender is the bare minimum any truly victorious alliance should expect.

 

Only if they wish to pave the way to further conflicts, especially if the terms are designed to humiliate.  Sensible alliances try to build bridges to avoid future conflict.  But hey, you are entitled to your opinion

 

 

Had NoR treated the people fighting it with a modicum of respect,

 

This I had to laugh at, you are digging up history on this one.  Especially considering the greater number of NoR members who did it have either left the game or the alliance (some are now even fighting on your side of the fence).

 

Sometimes though, the truth hurts.  From the battle reports I have seen, MW members have not performed well on a 1:1 basis, which usually bounces back on the MoW and organisation of that alliance.

 

That I know of, in this conflict, most if not all NoR members have treated their enemies with respect.  In fact there are standing orders telling them to do so.  Still if I, for example say that a person or an alliance is not fighting well against us, and the figures show they are not, then that is not disrespect, it is a fact.

 

 

But they'll have to surrender now.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not.  That all depends on how things go from here.

[Goldie]

For you it is, but I am sure when you are faced with admitting defeat or having to surrender you will sing a different tune

I can guarantee you, that if I'm leaving the war alongside the ally I joined with, and they're agreeing to a surrender, that I would as well so as to not hold it up.

[CnaedmacAilpn]

I can guarantee you, that if I'm leaving the war alongside the ally I joined with, and they're agreeing to a surrender, that I would as well so as to not hold it up.

Who knows what will happen, it is a decision to be taken by our Government, but of one thing I am sure, it will be honourable and will take the interests of NG into account as well.

 

But, interesting to see the only option you see is the Surrender of both alliances.

[KenMorningstar]

Haha all this posturing about "we won't surrender" when your alliance is effectively a crater is pretty funny. You are keeping NG and NPO in the war with your stupidity. PSAT what you want but you are the reason this front won't close and it's all. Because of some misplaced pride about words.

You surrender or you get even more crushed. I wouldn't mind getting a shot at you myself before this thing is over.

Edited February 9, 2014 by KenMorningstar

[Stewie]

Inb4 all the chains re-activate and we jump straight back into hell...

[Auctor]

TLR hereby surrenders and admits defeat to DoD, IRON, Sengoku, VE, and Argent. TLR agrees not to re-enter the war and may not aid any alliance still involved in the war until after official peace declarations have been made.

 

might put a damper on that, in this particular case.

[Empress Kiley]

Sometimes though, the truth hurts.  From the battle reports I have seen, MW members have not performed well on a 1:1 basis, which usually bounces back on the MoW and organisation of that alliance.

 

That I know of, in this conflict, most if not all NoR members have treated their enemies with respect.  In fact there are standing orders telling them to do so.  Still if I, for example say that a person or an alliance is not fighting well against us, and the figures show they are not, then that is not disrespect, it is a fact.

 

I find it funny that you, of all people are saying anything about alliance organization... 

 

I don't have to defend myself, my alliance or our performance. I'm happy with our figures considering the situation. :)  Our acting MoW did an excellent job and was far more dedicated than I would have been.

 

Surrender, admit defeat... either way you want to spin it, fact remains you have lost. Stalling only keeps you and your allies in the war longer. I am sure your allies are going to be very grateful that you are the reason their nations cannot start rebuilding.

[The Zigur]

The way NoR tried to target Mortal Wombats makes a surrender warranted. Yall must have thought you were so clever until we managed to form up the oA counterattack. That was the best night of the war for me. Considering the trouble NoR has unnecessarily caused, surrender is getting off light.

[Neo Uruk]

We'll see mass-ghosting or something along those lines if this war goes on for too much longer.

Also, just a reminder that if NoR took peace today NPO still couldn't start terms so shut up about them holding NPO at war.

[CnaedmacAilpn]

 

I find it funny that you, of all people are saying anything about alliance organization... 

 

I don't have to defend myself, my alliance or our performance. I'm happy with our figures considering the situation. :)  Our acting MoW did an excellent job and was far more dedicated than I would have been.

 

Surrender, admit defeat... either way you want to spin it, fact remains you have lost. Stalling only keeps you and your allies in the war longer. I am sure your allies are going to be very grateful that you are the reason their nations cannot start rebuilding.

I would be surprised if you said anything different.  Like a good politician, but still the battle reports show MW doing far worse than others of your allies.  Lack of coordination, I had one guy declare on me in the middle of the day, without either bothering to muscle up or attack.  I admit I had difficulty with the two other opponents (who declared a couple of days before him), they fought both well and with co-ordination (I would expect nothing less from VE), but you chap botched most of his attacks and even when I had no nukes for the last two days (after the VE guys were out) he still managed to perform badly.

 

As to keeping our allies in the conflict, if they wanted to make a separate peace, like TLR did, that is their decision. I am sure our government would never force an ally to stay in, that would neither be productive or helpful.

 

But know this, if our government decides to tell us to fight on, we will, it is what we do, it is what defines us.  The nations left in NoR are old school fighters and fully committed to seeing this through

 

I keep hearing about how futile it is, how we cannot win against such overwhelming odds. Well(ooc) The Scots fought the English for nearly 1,000 years, losing most of their battles but never the ultimate war.  The N Vietnamese were told they had no chance against the might of the USA, that ended well for the USA.  In my own military experience I have seen what a poorly armed, trained and equipped force, fully committed to its cause can do to a massive force(/ooc).  Fact is, if NoR did go down that road, of course against complete alliances we could not win. We would in such a scenario, not be looking to win, we could not, but then in the long term neither would our targets either, it would simply be a war of attrition.

 

 

 

The way NoR tried to target Mortal Wombats makes a surrender warranted. Yall must have thought you were so clever until we managed to form up the oA counterattack. That was the best night of the war for me. Considering the trouble NoR has unnecessarily caused, surrender is getting off light.

Of all the people in here, you have no cause to talk.  You yourself have the alliances more problems than anyone else I know.  Also if your opinion is against NoR, with you history of catastrophic judgement and changing your colours to suit yourself means the sum total of zero.