Letum Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 You wanted to know what the terms of peace would be, you got the first thing that the coalition thought of, your weak-willed marionette "emperor" Farrin agreed I think you've got your timeline a bit wrong here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) That's not my issue I responded to the previous post to point out your leadership's hypocracy of "leading from the front" but then passing the buck in terms of responsibility for the way the war ended. I'm not arguing the issue of the justification of the terms or whatever, but Dajobo, "leading from the front" can't just pass the buck to other members of your coalition in the last war on that point, if he's truly "leading from the front". Own it like we are in this war, at least we're calling a spade a spade in this shindig. Leading from the front is not synonymous with playing dictator within a coalition. In fact doing that is exactly what turned what should have been Pacifica's triumphant return to the A List into a guarantee of mediocrity. I'm just going to keep it simple: If that's your point, you're dumb. It warrants no WoT. Edited November 17, 2014 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 I guess we will see how everyone handles terms when this war ends. Until then, this discussion is moot because many here on both sides may well be in favor of terms for the other side at the end of all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgaine Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Exactly my point. Are you just dense or... ? You have been suggested to re-read my post, and you got it wrong twice? The NpO guy (Morgaine) said NPO has an history of imposing terms and chasing away people, to which I replied that the last occurrence of that was in 2008 probably, while his own alliance (NpO) imposed terms as early as this year (so the "big bad NPO" argument seems weak coming from them). Is it more clear now? NpO "guy" Morgaine indeed. :mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgaine Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Os has the right of this. Morgaine you should really stop posting now, its not going well for you. If you do not like what I am saying, you always have the option of debating sanctions on me in your General Assembly or perhaps bringing charges against me in your High Court. That should keep you busy for a few months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Kersch isn't in GATO anymore. :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Morgaine is an old school CNer in case you haven't noticed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deakin Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 The pattern has repeated itself more times than you can fathom. Nations rise, evolve, advance, and at the apex of their glory they are extinguished. The cycle cannot be broken. Coming from DBDC, this is strangely comforting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgaine Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 Kersch isn't in GATO anymore. :| He is still sporting a GATO badge. Morgaine is an old school CNer in case you haven't noticed. Look who is talking :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted November 17, 2014 Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 He is still sporting a GATO badge. Point remains. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yerushalayim Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 I think you've got your timeline a bit wrong here. Letum's correct. Farrin haggled pretty hard, and the talks went on for a while, before he finally agreed. Considering the situation at the time, it's inaccurate to take a shot at him for being weak willed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 I'm always down to see Polar get kicked right in hurting place, so o/ DBDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Lots of people here being absolutely 100% certain that Polaris wanted, nay DEMANDED that Pacifica pay all the reps in the history of reps paying. I recall us at the time being pretty clear, both on and off the OWF, that we didn't want reps and didn't give many !@#$% about Pacifica nations being in PM. Sure it wasn't high on our "this is cool" list (yes we have a list), but I never heard a member of our government saying "THEY MUST BURN IN THE FIERY DEPTHS OF PAINLAND". Now, we did have some allies at the time (shocker, I know, we're so isolated and leaving everyone to burn nowadays). Some of these allies were less mellow about Pacifica's PM policy than we were. So, as victors of the war (coalition, remember?) they sought to rectify this. After negotiations (which took AGES of back and forth, I might add), a term was decided between BOTH sides (this includes Pacifica). I won't pretend that NPO came out happy or unscathed, but that was kinda the point of it. Lest I start to ramble, a recap: - Yes, Pacifica paid a price higher than "white peace" at the end of the last war. - Yes, this was a demand by the coalition of the so lovingly dubbed "Polarsphere" alliances. - No, Polaris was not a strong advocate of the price that was paid, but we weren't alone in our coalition and didn't call each and every shot. - No, you can't just twist history like that to make it more convenient for you to get your point across. It's fun and all, but people that were there tend to know what happened. Now let's all get back to counting the number of aid slots and shouting at big bad Polar to both be a coward for declaring war on tech farms and a weakling for not declaring enough war on tech farms. First off pacifica didnt get white peace last war. That aside. Polar's leader specifically said to me for about a month (along with the leaders of top and sparta) that NPO wasn't 'allowed' to surrender. Not that there would be tough terms. But that surrender on any terms were not allowed. Negotiations were not allowed. Anyone *else* could surrender... but not NPO. Not as part of a coalition, not as an individual alliance. This despite the fact that NPO entered on an MDP and was supposedly not the CB of the war. And it had nothing to do with trying to surrender too soon... because every other alliance in the coalition was told THEY could surrender. Then when NPO *Was* finally allowed to surrender, they were given harsh terms for something other alliances were doing much more of (pm). The particular irony, is I expect that if the terms pushed by polar, sparta, and top were applied to THEM this war on the exact same reasoning (you have nations who haven't left pm) you all would scream bloody murder. If You weren't allowed to surrender, you would scream of 'lulzist aggression' It is the double standards that make me sneer at you tbh. Say what you will about doomsphere, they say what they mean and they do what they say. They don't have one standard of behavior when they are winning and another when they are losing. You may consider them asses, but if so they are equal asses all the time. And they live what they preach. And before we get into the fact that supposedly it wasn't polaris but a mystery alliance that wanted these terms. 1) Polaris (along with top and sparta) were the ones publicly pushing for the terms. 2) When you back something with militarily force in a coalition you don't get to shift the blame. You made the choice to back and enforce the above terms, you share responsibility. ODN got rolled along with MK because we backed MK. We didn't get to go 'ohh, geee. We didn't really agree with MK we just felt we had to back them in a coalition.' I mean come on. 3) I just had to put up with an entire thread of polar going on about how NPO can't blame some other alliance for their actions. So kindly man up and admit you are responsible for what you enforced. It doesn't matter what you truly felt in your secret heart of hearts. It matters what you did. You may have hated having to impose what you did on NPO... but you still *DID* it. And thus still are responsible. It doesn't matter who pressured you, who you were a mouthpiece for, or anything else. And yes, your actions in that war have impacted this one. Ironically, NPO seems to have largely forgiven you last war. But speaking purely personally, not for ODN, I haven't. And from talking to a lot of other alliances (that you probably needed to avoid losing this war) I'm not the only one. TOP gets off in my book because they recognized they screwed up, they took responsibility, and they apologized. I can respect that. I actually really admired how TOP handled things after the Disorder war. I don't respect the trying to avoid the blame for your actions, the justifying, or the trying to shift responsibility on to other alliances. But that's just one man's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Plot twist: Peace really is a lie? Peace is the only truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 NpO "guy" Morgaine indeed. :mad: OOC: no girls on the internet :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 First off pacifica didnt get white peace last war. That aside. Polar's leader specifically said to me for about a month (along with the leaders of top and sparta) that NPO wasn't 'allowed' to surrender. Not that there would be tough terms. But that surrender on any terms were not allowed. Negotiations were not allowed. Anyone *else* could surrender... but not NPO. Not as part of a coalition, not as an individual alliance. This despite the fact that NPO entered on an MDP and was supposedly not the CB of the war. And it had nothing to do with trying to surrender too soon... because every other alliance in the coalition was told THEY could surrender. Then when NPO *Was* finally allowed to surrender, they were given harsh terms for something other alliances were doing much more of (pm). The particular irony, is I expect that if the terms pushed by polar, sparta, and top were applied to THEM this war on the exact same reasoning (you have nations who haven't left pm) you all would scream bloody murder. If You weren't allowed to surrender, you would scream of 'lulzist aggression' It is the double standards that make me sneer at you tbh. Say what you will about doomsphere, they say what they mean and they do what they say. They don't have one standard of behavior when they are winning and another when they are losing. You may consider them asses, but if so they are equal asses all the time. And they live what they preach. And before we get into the fact that supposedly it wasn't polaris but a mystery alliance that wanted these terms. 1) Polaris (along with top and sparta) were the ones publicly pushing for the terms. 2) When you back something with militarily force in a coalition you don't get to shift the blame. You made the choice to back and enforce the above terms, you share responsibility. ODN got rolled along with MK because we backed MK. We didn't get to go 'ohh, geee. We didn't really agree with MK we just felt we had to back them in a coalition.' I mean come on. 3) I just had to put up with an entire thread of polar going on about how NPO can't blame some other alliance for their actions. So kindly man up and admit you are responsible for what you enforced. It doesn't matter what you truly felt in your secret heart of hearts. It matters what you did. You may have hated having to impose what you did on NPO... but you still *DID* it. And thus still are responsible. It doesn't matter who pressured you, who you were a mouthpiece for, or anything else. And yes, your actions in that war have impacted this one. Ironically, NPO seems to have largely forgiven you last war. But speaking purely personally, not for ODN, I haven't. And from talking to a lot of other alliances (that you probably needed to avoid losing this war) I'm not the only one. TOP gets off in my book because they recognized they screwed up, they took responsibility, and they apologized. I can respect that. I actually really admired how TOP handled things after the Disorder war. I don't respect the trying to avoid the blame for your actions, the justifying, or the trying to shift responsibility on to other alliances. But that's just one man's opinion. At this point, everyone is guilty of double standards. I am sure ODN and friends will attempt to force terms on us and I'll look back to this post and point out exactly why. Accusing anyone of being biased is a very generalized attack when it applies to everyone, even yourself, as ODN themselves are quite guilty of forcing terms on others, as mentioned previously here. Also, if you are this angry, why did you even surrender in the first place? ODN wasn't really that poorly off last war. If there was this large of a grudge brewing between ODN towards Polar, I would have expected to have seen a bit more fight there. Also, why do you view enforcing somewhat light terms (based on past precedent) as being worse than attacking and raiding 20+ alliances including a mass raid on a neutral alliance? You clowns attempting to enforce morality...have no idea. Save it, and just enjoy the fight. Look who is talking :P You got me...honestly it's been too long. Might be time to ride into the sunset for a few of us, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToxicCr0pDust3r Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 NpO "guy" Morgaine indeed. :mad: Want me to take him out under the flag pole? Also yaaaa! Moar war announcements thingies... :ehm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sounion Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 wow. reading this thread was a huge waste of time. sounds a lot like pretty much every other thread on the OWF. A LOT of people here need to get a life. time to return to mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) First off pacifica didnt get white peace last war. That aside. Polar's leader specifically said to me for about a month (along with the leaders of top and sparta) that NPO wasn't 'allowed' to surrender. Not that there would be tough terms. But that surrender on any terms were not allowed. Negotiations were not allowed. Anyone *else* could surrender... but not NPO. Not as part of a coalition, not as an individual alliance. This despite the fact that NPO entered on an MDP and was supposedly not the CB of the war. And it had nothing to do with trying to surrender too soon... because every other alliance in the coalition was told THEY could surrender. Then when NPO *Was* finally allowed to surrender, they were given harsh terms for something other alliances were doing much more of (pm). The particular irony, is I expect that if the terms pushed by polar, sparta, and top were applied to THEM this war on the exact same reasoning (you have nations who haven't left pm) you all would scream bloody murder. If You weren't allowed to surrender, you would scream of 'lulzist aggression' It is the double standards that make me sneer at you tbh. Say what you will about doomsphere, they say what they mean and they do what they say. They don't have one standard of behavior when they are winning and another when they are losing. You may consider them asses, but if so they are equal asses all the time. And they live what they preach. And before we get into the fact that supposedly it wasn't polaris but a mystery alliance that wanted these terms. 1) Polaris (along with top and sparta) were the ones publicly pushing for the terms. 2) When you back something with militarily force in a coalition you don't get to shift the blame. You made the choice to back and enforce the above terms, you share responsibility. ODN got rolled along with MK because we backed MK. We didn't get to go 'ohh, geee. We didn't really agree with MK we just felt we had to back them in a coalition.' I mean come on. 3) I just had to put up with an entire thread of polar going on about how NPO can't blame some other alliance for their actions. So kindly man up and admit you are responsible for what you enforced. It doesn't matter what you truly felt in your secret heart of hearts. It matters what you did. You may have hated having to impose what you did on NPO... but you still *DID* it. And thus still are responsible. It doesn't matter who pressured you, who you were a mouthpiece for, or anything else. And yes, your actions in that war have impacted this one. Ironically, NPO seems to have largely forgiven you last war. But speaking purely personally, not for ODN, I haven't. And from talking to a lot of other alliances (that you probably needed to avoid losing this war) I'm not the only one. TOP gets off in my book because they recognized they screwed up, they took responsibility, and they apologized. I can respect that. I actually really admired how TOP handled things after the Disorder war. I don't respect the trying to avoid the blame for your actions, the justifying, or the trying to shift responsibility on to other alliances. But that's just one man's opinion. I think Polar came up with the idea of what terms could be like, not of the idea of wanting to impose them. Idea of imposing terms isnt of Polar origin, but what terms would be like was. Polar and Sparta then became the public face of the terms, 'koz that's what some of the friends wanted and we owe them, give and take'. It was pretty stupid idea to lead talks on it and you will become party to the blame. Just my two cents. Edited November 18, 2014 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) At this point, everyone is guilty of double standards. I am sure ODN and friends will attempt to force terms on us and I'll look back to this post and point out exactly why. Accusing anyone of being biased is a very generalized attack when it applies to everyone, even yourself, as ODN themselves are quite guilty of forcing terms on others, as mentioned previously here. Also, if you are this angry, why did you even surrender in the first place? ODN wasn't really that poorly off last war. If there was this large of a grudge brewing between ODN towards Polar, I would have expected to have seen a bit more fight there. Also, why do you view enforcing somewhat light terms (based on past precedent) as being worse than attacking and raiding 20+ alliances including a mass raid on a neutral alliance? You clowns attempting to enforce morality...have no idea. Save it, and just enjoy the fight. You got me...honestly it's been too long. Might be time to ride into the sunset for a few of us, haha. ODN didn't surrender actually. We were granted white peace without surrender. Heh, we certainly would not have accepted those terms, no. And the last time ODN demanded any terms was of mcxa back in... grudge? Dave? Somewhere. And those terms were a 1 on 1 duel between an equal number of nations of equal ns total. So I wouldnt exactly call us oppressors heh. And if I had my way, we would just fight. I dont claim dbdc are some moral alliance. I highly doubt they are lol. But what I dislike isn't a lack of morality its a duplicitous nature. Be as amoral as you want, just dont pretend butter wouldn't melt on your tongue. My issue isn't that polar wanted terms, but the hypocritical reasons they claimed they wanted them for. Its that they demanded it while pretending they were against them, and pretend they would never do anything so dishonorable etc etc. And if anyone tried to put the same terms on them, they would react with outrage at how evil terms were. Polar would have more respect from me if they ditched the act and the double standard and just went 'we hate alliance X, and we will do whatever we can to take them down." What gets my goat isnt the actions they are taking, but the bs spin they put on those actions. This entire thread being a classic case in point. That insults my intelligence. If you are doing something cause it gives you an edge, just say that. Don't wrap it up as though you are taking some principled stand. And if you are going to hurt NPO or do things most of bob would consider 'wrong' in order to appease allies or try to keep them down? Stop trying to pretend you don't bare any guilt for those actions but were just some bewildered standby. Own up to it and take whatever consequences come of it. DBDC may be asses, but they dont pretend to be anything else. Edited November 18, 2014 by OsRavan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 I'm waiting for your Dow Os. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OsRavan Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 ::tips hat to Mogar:: How are you, amigo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 Polar would have more respect from me if they ditched the act and the double standard and just went 'we hate alliance X, and we will do whatever we can to take them down." What gets my goat isnt the actions they are taking, but the bs spin they put on those actions. This entire thread being a classic case in point. That insults my intelligence. If you are doing something cause it gives you an edge, just say that. Don't wrap it up as though you are taking some principled stand. And if you are going to hurt NPO or do things most of bob would consider 'wrong' in order to appease allies or try to keep them down? Stop trying to pretend you don't bare any guilt for those actions but were just some bewildered standby. Own up to it and take whatever consequences come of it. DBDC may be asses, but they dont pretend to be anything else. Amen, OsRavan. Couldn't have said it better myself. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty of the Herm Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 First off pacifica didnt get white peace last war. That aside. Polar's leader specifically said to me for about a month (along with the leaders of top and sparta) that NPO wasn't 'allowed' to surrender. Not that there would be tough terms. But that surrender on any terms were not allowed. Negotiations were not allowed. Anyone *else* could surrender... but not NPO. Not as part of a coalition, not as an individual alliance. This despite the fact that NPO entered on an MDP and was supposedly not the CB of the war. And it had nothing to do with trying to surrender too soon... because every other alliance in the coalition was told THEY could surrender. Then when NPO *Was* finally allowed to surrender, they were given harsh terms for something other alliances were doing much more of (pm). The particular irony, is I expect that if the terms pushed by polar, sparta, and top were applied to THEM this war on the exact same reasoning (you have nations who haven't left pm) you all would scream bloody murder. If You weren't allowed to surrender, you would scream of 'lulzist aggression' It is the double standards that make me sneer at you tbh. Say what you will about doomsphere, they say what they mean and they do what they say. They don't have one standard of behavior when they are winning and another when they are losing. You may consider them asses, but if so they are equal asses all the time. And they live what they preach. And before we get into the fact that supposedly it wasn't polaris but a mystery alliance that wanted these terms. 1) Polaris (along with top and sparta) were the ones publicly pushing for the terms. 2) When you back something with militarily force in a coalition you don't get to shift the blame. You made the choice to back and enforce the above terms, you share responsibility. ODN got rolled along with MK because we backed MK. We didn't get to go 'ohh, geee. We didn't really agree with MK we just felt we had to back them in a coalition.' I mean come on. 3) I just had to put up with an entire thread of polar going on about how NPO can't blame some other alliance for their actions. So kindly man up and admit you are responsible for what you enforced. It doesn't matter what you truly felt in your secret heart of hearts. It matters what you did. You may have hated having to impose what you did on NPO... but you still *DID* it. And thus still are responsible. It doesn't matter who pressured you, who you were a mouthpiece for, or anything else. And yes, your actions in that war have impacted this one. Ironically, NPO seems to have largely forgiven you last war. But speaking purely personally, not for ODN, I haven't. And from talking to a lot of other alliances (that you probably needed to avoid losing this war) I'm not the only one. TOP gets off in my book because they recognized they screwed up, they took responsibility, and they apologized. I can respect that. I actually really admired how TOP handled things after the Disorder war. I don't respect the trying to avoid the blame for your actions, the justifying, or the trying to shift responsibility on to other alliances. But that's just one man's opinion. I thought I just said this a page or two ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted November 18, 2014 Report Share Posted November 18, 2014 The same OsRavan who is crying 1984 will easily be quoted over the past 18 months saying he has never accepted or supported reps, yet it was he who demanded extended war for MCXA, supported $2 billion in reps in DH-NPO, and fought in support of $1 billion and tens-of-thousands in tech in TOP-C&G. 2) When you back something with militarily force in a coalition you don't get to shift the blame. You made the choice to back and enforce the above terms, you share responsibility. And the last time ODN demanded any terms was of mcxa back in... grudge? Dave? Somewhere. ::sniffs finger:: You too can be a prophet, kids. ::chortles:: 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.