Jump to content

I can't think of a topic title to post so here it is!


Recommended Posts

 

The hilarious thing is that you all think I am promoting terms to aftermath. I am simply promoting what SHOULD have been promoted.. come out of Peace Mode, then we will talk closing down the front. It is literally something that they could not possibly object to after imposing terms for peace mode use (of , and I cannot stress this enough) literally 17 nations out of 393 in the last war. And let us not kid ourselves... not one person cared about the other 20-30 in the 20-60K range that were in PM, anyone who claims to care is a liar at worst and disingenuous at best. 

 

Come out of Peace Mode, then we talk. Nothing more.

 

Look Rush, I blame Aftermath for being party to the bs that occurred in Disorder as much as the next guy, but what you're saying here is silly. You're saying you're not promoting it but that it should have been promoted. That's generally called promoting it, no matter how you try wording it. If you don't like what was done, coup TLR's government and wholeheartedly demand terms be put on big bad Aftermath for what they were party to Pacifica taking in Disorder the next time TLR is at war with Aftermath. Until then, not much use complaining that your desired "taste of your own medicine" terms weren't laid out, because clearly no parties on our side saw it necessary or cared enough, regardless of how much you think it should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Giving terms is quite simply getting even. More people are more interested in warm and fuzzies, its why the political climate on Planet Bob is so Admin-Awful. Everyone wants to act like genuine dislike, grudges, vengeance are things to shy away from , I simply do no subscribe that philosophy.


It's a small world, usually the people you're in a position to impose upon are also those you may need at some point in the future. War politics today often revolve around maneuvering for the next war, and making sure the controversies and grudges land on others instead of yourself. Sometimes that means a muted accommodating tone on the part of a victor, other times it means pointing the finger for things you yourself are responsible for. Regardless, its all the same, ensuring things like lack of courtesy, or resentment, don't obstruct what you're actually after. You shouldn't be surprised, it isn't a lack of will or cowardice that has changed the world, just its scope and with it the cost of such efforts. No one here deserves criticism for their settlement decision, they were wise to prioritize politics over self gratification. Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Marx try to spar with Branimir in a duel of wits is the only thing that made this thread worth reading.


Rush, it delegitimizes you when you're deliberately insulting to Schatt. You're both intelligent fellows, albeit on opposite sides of an argument. Why not practice some courtesy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching Marx try to spar with Branimir in a duel of wits is the only thing that made this thread worth reading.


Rush, it delegitimizes you when you're deliberately insulting to Schatt. You're both intelligent fellows, albeit on opposite sides of an argument. Why not practice some courtesy?

 

Courtesy you say?

 

Schatts 1st words to me in this thread:

 

While we're being ridiculous, I think TLR should be punished for allowing those terms to be given to their ally.  I mean Brehon/Letum/NPO didn't allow EQ to give out any terms, then TLR turns around and lets NPO get terms the very next war.  TLR should be ashamed.  Whoever is sharing a front with TLR should put terms on TLR regardless of which coalition TLR is in.

 

In all seriousness, the idea that defending alliances in the defensive coalition of a war started with no CB should be given any terms is an idiotic idea worthy of only the most liberally idiotic such as Rush. 

 

Courtesy you say? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its cute that you act like I was not an ally of his at the time and did not talk to him EVERY single day about terms. Its cute that you think you need to educate me. I have logs from Sparta gov... AI gov(who all are strangely enough in Valhalla) lambasting Brehon because the terms were not harsh enough. Hence my incredulous disconnect with understanding how one group was like "Oh no Brehon is imposing terms!" and an entirely different group is mad because "Brehon is letting them off far too easy just to appease C&G".. both narratives played, and they both cannot be true... and only a fool is unable to wade through what really happened.

I completely agree and I think it is very gracious of you to say so.
The terms Brehon negotiated were: 1-Negotiated before anyone wanted to start negotiating (we just wanted to keep fighting) 2-Not even the terms that we told him we wanted (those who wanted any) when we had to give him terms wishlists since he decided to negotiate even though we told him not to.  When you guys all went catatonic over the offer of 5 mos no aid (which was Brehon's invention), we all kept fighting a while.  3-Internally, the terms debate got nasty, Brehon lost his blob and said he would no longer negotiate anything. 4-The next day, Brehon negotiated an extended war even though no one wanted an formalized extended war 5-We told Brehon to kick rocks we weren't agreeing to his stupid crap anymore and to just end the war altogether.
 
By the way, while you're out here shooting your mouth off about how we backed off the extended war because we have vaginas, I'd like to point out to you that the biggest opponents of any terms whatsoever are in your coalition, not ours, because they were the AAs with the upper tier that was going to be stuck fighting Umbrella.  I'm personally amused by your goofy mouth, I don't know about them.
 

I feel like I understand Rush's point but at the same time for myself, and I think for my Alliance at least, this was us merely stepping in to help our ally. We didn't really care about the main objectives of the war and thus imposing even the idea of "We won't talk peace till you come out of peace mode" is simply something we felt was just an "Eh" move. No reason for us to do it as far as I could tell.

Funny enough, this same attitude was the biggest obstacle to terms in EQ: AAs simply refused to fight a war in support of terms they didn't really care about. Good for you.
 

Perhaps you do not understand that you reap what you sow. Seems to be a common problem in Polaris. Which is hilarious for an alliance sporting so damn many pseudo-moralists.

There's only one moralist in Polaris, it's Dajobo, and he's dyed in the wool. It's disgusting. :gag:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree and I think it is very gracious of you to say so.
The terms Brehon negotiated were: 1-Negotiated before anyone wanted to start negotiating (we just wanted to keep fighting) 2-Not even the terms that we told him we wanted (those who wanted any) when we had to give him terms wishlists since he decided to negotiate even though we told him not to.  When you guys all went catatonic over the offer of 5 mos no aid (which was Brehon's invention), we all kept fighting a while.  3-Internally, the terms debate got nasty, Brehon lost his blob and said he would no longer negotiate anything. 4-The next day, Brehon negotiated an extended war even though no one wanted an formalized extended war 5-We told Brehon to kick rocks we weren't agreeing to his stupid crap anymore and to just end the war altogether.
 
By the way, while you're out here shooting your mouth off about how we backed off the extended war because we have vaginas, I'd like to point out to you that the biggest opponents of any terms whatsoever are in your coalition, not ours, because they were the AAs with the upper tier that was going to be stuck fighting Umbrella.  I'm personally amused by your goofy mouth, I don't know about them.
 

Funny enough, this same attitude was the biggest obstacle to terms in EQ: AAs simply refused to fight a war in support of terms they didn't really care about. Good for you.
 

There's only one moralist in Polaris, it's Dajobo, and he's dyed in the wool. It's disgusting. :gag:

 

And in comes a 3rd narrative. Nobody was ready for terms... but nobody could enforce terms... but the terms were not harsh enough. What fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And in comes a 3rd narrative. Nobody was ready for terms... but nobody could enforce terms... but the terms were not harsh enough. What fun.

 

I'd argue that while all three applied, they did not apply to the same alliances. There were those unready, those who said they couldn't be enforced, and those who didn't care and wanted more. Some overlap with the middle and the first, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And in comes a 3rd narrative. Nobody was ready for terms... but nobody could enforce terms... but the terms were not harsh enough. What fun.

What an ignorant chump.

No, it's not a matter of harshness.  As I've noted in the past (in the comments), CoJ's terms proposition was the harshest, it called for 90 days aid restrictions.  Brehon opened with 150 (5 months)--how, then, could anyone have criticized him for being too lax? 

When it was settled in EQ that no terms would be agreeable to all of us, we told him don't negotiate an extended war, just keep fighting, and when we're ready for peace we'll give white peace.  Instead he negotiated a formalized extended war.  You don't know what you're talking about.

 

You are literally ignorant, I don't care what sweet nothings Brehon was whispering in your ear while the coalition he organized to wreck you and your allies was wrecking you and your allies.  He also told all of you there would be a "handshake peace"--how'd that work out?  You think anyone in EQ likes me?  Hah!  Even NSO's guy is out here saying you're wrong. 

 

You're ignorant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd argue that while all three applied, they did not apply to the same alliances. There were those unready, those who said they couldn't be enforced, and those who didn't care and wanted more. Some overlap with the middle and the first, of course.

 

You know what that tells me? That tells me that no matter what Brehon did, he would piss off a great many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an ignorant chump.

No, it's not a matter of harshness.  As I've noted in the past (in the comments), CoJ's terms proposition was the harshest, it called for 90 days aid restrictions.  Brehon opened with 150 (5 months)--how, then, could anyone have criticized him for being too lax? 

When it was settled in EQ that no terms would be agreeable to all of us, we told him don't negotiate an extended war, just keep fighting, and when we're ready for peace we'll give white peace.  Instead he negotiated a formalized extended war.  You don't know what you're talking about.

 

You are literally ignorant, I don't care what sweet nothings Brehon was whispering in your ear while the coalition he organized to wreck you and your allies was wrecking you and your allies.  He also told all of you there would be a "handshake peace"--how'd that work out?  You think anyone in EQ likes me?  Hah!  Even NSO's guy is out here saying you're wrong. 

 

You're ignorant. 

 

Honestly, the handshake peace worked out quite well, because in the end, that is what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You know what that tells me? That tells me that no matter what Brehon did, he would piss off a great many people.

 

Well, at its most basic yes. Of course, as my own view of the war's ending was: it would have been better had he not intervened to play Pappa Brehon and take unilateral action a lot of people didn't want him to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious how many AFM alliances pushed for terms on NPO in disorder? I honestly cannot think of any. If my memory serves me right it was pretty much white peace or basic surrender and no reentry. I mean I could be wrong the CCC could of pushed them we know them Christian peeps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I am being quite clear.

 

In my first post I said what would be best for your alliance in this situation, in my second post I clarified that it would not be my personal preference.

 

Unfortunately, now I wait until someone muzzles you before you bite off more then you can chew.

 

Nobody's muzzling Marx, you smarmy cunt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yeah you're right. I should shut up and not express my own opinion because some tool might attribute it to GOONS official policy. Sardonic really should do a better job at preventing his members from expressing their own opinions because people might not like those opinions!

 
Opinions? And you want to express them? How dare you. (Sarcasm here. I agree with Marx)
 

I have no moral objection to terms being demanded or enforce. Its up to the alliance to determine whether the hinderence/gain is worth the potential political fallout.

Choosing not to give terms, was a calculated. It puts NPO in a position to capitalize on the good will they've shown if they so choose. For a forward thinking alliance, I expected nothing different.

Congratz on the peace. Good luck on the rebuild.

 
This is a nice summary of the basic political reality. I agree.
 

I'm pretty sure he was referring to what occured on the battlefield. The way peace is settled doesn't determine the victor. Also technically it's not a completely white peace since there is the single term that the Super Cereal Coalition cannot aid or rejoin the conflict in any way, shape or form. That simple term is enforcible, and the same term is not imposed on the other coalition either showing which side won in the end.


Your last point is the important one, and where I have to agree with you. Aftermath agreed to peace with the other side. And everyone knows who won, and who lost.

Those facts determined how we handled the terms we both agreed upon, and now our part is done.

My personal opinion, I am very happy that our peace was not worded "white peace", but instead how it was. It doesn't sully the name of White peace, and is honest about what occurred. Everything said & done, I enjoyed it greatly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait - I thought this was White Peace, now you're claiming Victory?
 
Whatevs - hope you all had a grand time on the battlefield anyways...


How can this be white peace if there are terms imposed? No aid, no techdeals to the fighting parties... small as they might be, those are terms still. What we call white peace is not real white peace, hasn't been for years really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can this be white peace if there are terms imposed? No aid, no techdeals to the fighting parties... small as they might be, those are terms still. What we call white peace is not real white peace, hasn't been for years really.

 

We really should get around to renaming it "dignified surrender" or something, because that's essentially what modern "white peace" is supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can this be white peace if there are terms imposed? No aid, no techdeals to the fighting parties... small as they might be, those are terms still. What we call white peace is not real white peace, hasn't been for years really.

Either way, the assertion that white peace means there was no victor or defeated has always been worthy of ridicule to begin with. 

 

 

We really should get around to renaming it "dignified surrender" or something, because that's essentially what modern "white peace" is supposed to be.

"Peace with honor"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can this be white peace if there are terms imposed? No aid, no techdeals to the fighting parties... small as they might be, those are terms still. What we call white peace is not real white peace, hasn't been for years really.


Very true. Why I call it off white peace. It's white peace just changed a little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you're all doing backflips to try and make up a more acceptable and accurate term when one already exists. There can be peace by dignified or honourable surrender, or whatever, but the surrender to the imposed terms is still there. Whitewashing that aspect from the announcement (and discourse), belittles both parties.

 

When one party surrenders to the terms of another (who is also acknowledged as the victor), then they have, well... surrendered. Peace has been achieved, by surrender of one party to another, and very lenient terms have been agreed to on both sides. That is the situation. face-saving by being mealy-mouthed, or twisting the definitions should not be necessary.

 

I know it is part of the culture of this place, and I know I am flogging a dead horse as well, but the lack of precision and/or outright propagandist euphemism that replaces meaningful discourse in this place is a bit distressing...

 

[ooc]it reminds me of rl politics far too much  :awesome: [/ooc]

 

PS - I hope, if it comes to it, that our surrender would be a noble affair where we acknowledge our victors with good grace. 

Edited by Mihail the Just
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please just stop fighting? This is a thread about peace, after all :D

 

 

I feel like I understand Rush's point but at the same time for myself, and I think for my Alliance at least, this was us merely stepping in to help our ally. We didn't really care about the main objectives of the war and thus imposing even the idea of "We won't talk peace till you come out of peace mode" is simply something we felt was just an "Eh" move. No reason for us to do it as far as I could tell.

 

e: I did the thing.

Just like Zhu Li!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...