Terms for NAAW

[Azhrarn]

I, for one, don't wish to reopen fresh wounds; however, I would like to suggest that there are certain factors which you are leaving out of your equation. Instead of seeking to cast blame upon Blackwater, try asking yourself what changed to suddenly enable everyone to "give peace a chance."

Edited January 9, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Dochartaigh]

I, for one, don't wish to reopen fresh wounds; however, I would like to suggest that there are certain factors which you are leaving out of your equation. Instead of seeking to cast blame upon Blackwater, try asking yourself what changed to suddenly enable everyone to "give peace a chance."

if you are talking to me, i am not seeking to blame anyone. just stating that BW is not as blameless as metal (whom i quoted) wants to make ya'll out to be. Neither is BW as high on the moral standing as ya'll seem to want to make yourselves.

i honestly don't care what it took to get peace done. Both sides rejected white peace.

NAAW hit BW for BW defending themselves. NAAW loses moral high ground.

BW gathers allies to help defend BW.

NAAW hears of this gathering and offers white peace.

BW rejects white peace and allows allies to tear into NAAW. BW loses moral high ground.

BW offers white peace the next day to NAAW.

NAAW rejects white peace. Neither side still have no moral high ground to stand on.

that is basically what i said above.

[popsumpot]

NAAW hears of this gathering and offers white peace.

BW rejects white peace and allows allies to tear into NAAW. BW loses moral high ground.

The peace was offered after attacks and sanctions...

[Azhrarn]

BW gathers allies to help defend BW.

NAAW hears of this gathering and offers white peace.

BW rejects white peace and allows allies to tear into NAAW. BW loses moral high ground.

BW offers white peace the next day to NAAW.

Yes, Dochartaigh, I was speaking to you. What is the point of this, other than starting up yet again an argument that had finally died down?

You're entitled to your point of view. Now here's mine: NAAW only offered peace when they became aware that they might actually face real resistance to, and real consequences for, their actions. In other words, it wasn't a sincere peace offer. And this was reflected by the fact that there was no admittance of responsibility for their actions, and no guarantee that such actions would not recur in the future.

Now we have a public apology from one of NAAW's leaders, and a pledge to sign a NAP. So the two "white peaces" you mention aren't really equivalent at all.

[KingDingaLing]

Yes, Dochartaigh, I was speaking to you. What is the point of this, other than starting up yet again an argument that had finally died down?

You're entitled to your point of view. Now here's mine: NAAW only offered peace when they became aware that they might actually face real resistance to, and real consequences for, their actions. In other words, it wasn't a sincere peace offer. And this was reflected by the fact that there was no admittance of responsibility for their actions, and no guarantee that such actions would not recur in the future.

Now we have a public apology from one of NAAW's leaders, and a pledge to sign a NAP. So the two "white peaces" you mention aren't really equivalent at all.

This is incorrect. As I offered a NAP before the blitz happened. But anyways it is over now.

[Dochartaigh]

Yes, Dochartaigh, I was speaking to you. What is the point of this, other than starting up yet again an argument that had finally died down?

You're entitled to your point of view. Now here's mine: NAAW only offered peace when they became aware that they might actually face real resistance to, and real consequences for, their actions. In other words, it wasn't a sincere peace offer. And this was reflected by the fact that there was no admittance of responsibility for their actions, and no guarantee that such actions would not recur in the future.

Now we have a public apology from one of NAAW's leaders, and a pledge to sign a NAP. So the two "white peaces" you mention aren't really equivalent at all.

yes, i am starting it up again. /end sarcasm.

i am actually just pointing out that BW does not have any moral footing to stand on because i am tired of coming on to these forums and seeing BW claim how moralistic they are. does it matter why NAAW offered peace the first time? no, it really doesn't. what matters is that they offered peace. would that insincere peace resulted in less destruction? yes. did the sincere rejection by BW cause more destruction to nations? yes.

did BW use their allies to amass a larger coalition than NAAW for the sole purpose of attempting to destroy NAAW? yes. BW offered peace but it was as insincere as NAAW's. then BW spent days bawwwing on these forums and claiming some moral high ground because NAAW rejected the peace BW gave.

please. if BW would stop with the moral highground and stop bringing it up themselves (such as me RESPONDING to metal) then no one else would say anything.

[Azhrarn]

yes, i am starting it up again.

Fixed that for you.

As I've already explained, this is an argument that can never be resolved because it's stemming from two different ways of looking at things. But since you don't seem to have understood my first explanation, let me try again.

Last round I started off as an independent, and got jumped at update by 3 tech-raiders, all from the same alliance. Did I go onto the forums and whine about the fact that they had raided me? No, I put all 3 into Anarchy. And then, because I considered 3 attacks from the same small alliance to be a declaration of war, I put 3 more of their alliance members into Anarchy. It was a very boring 6vs1 war.

Last round I also tech raided a NONE. We gave each other black eyes, broke a few bones, it was a very fun war. I basically used it as a training exercise, and tried out several new things with him. Afterwards we thanked each other and went our separate ways.

The point is, if I tech raid someone, I know I'm in the wrong. I'm the aggressor who is basically trying to steal from someone else; so if they decide to hit back, or decide to call a couple of buddies to come help them out, I have no cause to complain. I'm the one who attacked him after all.

That's because I have a warrior mentality.

Now let's talk about what I call the bully mentality. This type of person actually believes he has the right to steal from others, so you'll hear him saying things like, "It's ok if I mug you, just as long as I don't use excessive force (no CMs or bombing runs)," or "It's ok to mug someone if they're on their death bed anyway (inactive)." But if the victim (who may have been saving up for an infra blitz) doesn't see it that way, and decides to fight back aggressively, or asks his friends for help, then the bully will get upset and start complaining, because as we all know, inside of every bully is a sniveling coward.

I can't stop someone from complaining because they decided to tech raid a small alliance and discovered that they had bitten off more than they could chew, but I do think it's incredibly pathetic.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Dochartaigh]

Fixed that for you.

As I've already explained, this is an argument that can never be resolved because it's stemming from two different ways of looking at things. But since you don't seem to have understood my first explanation, let me try again.

Last round I started off as an independent, and got jumped at update by 3 tech-raiders, all from the same alliance. Did I go onto the forums and whine about the fact that they had raided me? No, I put all 3 into Anarchy. And then, because I considered 3 attacks from the same small alliance to be a declaration of war, I put 3 more of their alliance members into Anarchy. It was a very boring 6vs1 war.

Last round I also tech raided a NONE. We gave each other black eyes, broke a few bones, it was a very fun war. I basically used it as a training exercise, and tried out several new things with him. Afterwards we thanked each other and went our separate ways.

The point is, if I tech raid someone, I know I'm in the wrong. I'm the aggressor who is basically trying to steal from someone else; so if they decide to hit back, or decide to call a couple of buddies to come help them out, I have no cause to complain. I'm the one who attacked him after all.

That's because I have a warrior mentality.

Now let's talk about what I call the bully mentality. This type of person actually believes he has the right to steal from others, so you'll hear him saying things like, "It's ok if I mug you, just as long as I don't use excessive force (no CMs or bombing runs)," or "It's ok to mug someone if they're on their death bed anyway (inactive)." But if the victim (who may have been saving up for an infra blitz) doesn't see it that way, and decides to fight back aggressively, or asks his friends for help, then the bully will get upset and start complaining, because as we all know, inside of every bully is a sniveling coward.

I can't stop someone from complaining because they decided to tech raid a small alliance and discovered that they had bitten off more than they could chew, but I do think it's incredibly pathetic.

for one, wow, using the "i fixed that for you" bit. so eloquent.....

two, don't care about last round as each round is separate from the last.

three, BW got raided as basically every single alliance gets raided in CN:TE. BW decided to bring in allies, NAAW offered peace. BW rejected wanting to teach NAAW a lesson.

BW got bullied and when the table was turned in their favor, decided to bully the bully. if BW was in fact against bullying of any sort, ya'll would have accepted the peace offered by NAAW instead of escalating the war by bringing in your allies.

see, BW became the aggressor the moment they rejected peace and asked their friends to join in stomping NAAW. frankly, i find your argument amusing. again, i point to metal, whom i quoted in the initial post. i responded to what he said. and the fact that you continue to state that i am starting this up again is quite ridiculous. both sides are in the wrong because both sides at one point were the bullies.

[metal]

hmmmmm..... If ensuring that your alliance is no longer bullied, i would think once white peace was offered (even if it was conveniently after the rumors started flying of allies coming in) then you should have accepted it. The fact that BW continued to bring in their allies and escalate the war even farther by not accepting white peace, seems that they wanted to "bully" NAAW into accepting their peace terms vs actually just standing up to a bully.

Take for example the recent war with FARK and LPE. while it is unknown exactly which side started it, that war was quickly settled and FARK offered white peace to LPE. While we have no allies to bring in, i do believe that if we did, and white peace was issued before those alliances entered, LPE would have accepted it vs continuing with the war. (not saying that FARK is a bully alliance just stating that FARK is far larger than LPE.)

so again, BW uses her allies to basically form a larger alliance against NAAW (i.e. more NS, more nations, and far more nukes) and then basically tells NAAW to accept their white peace, despite NAAW offering white peace the day before.

and i do agree it does take two to "go" or "stop", but i don't blame NAAW for not accepting peace from BW, when BW basically spit upon the terms NAAW offered since they knew they had allies coming in who would stomp NAAW. it seems all the criticism from the BW camp against NAAW and Judgement can be said about BW.

if you truly wished to take the moral high ground against bully alliances, you would not have formed a coalition against NAAW, but simply accepted peace and shown through your actions that bully's can suffer consequences for their actions. it would have been shown through your allies readying themselves for war that smaller alliances can have friends ready and willing to show a larger alliance that they will stand up for themselves.

Well, while this issue is over, I'll respond here briefly and then consider this matter closed.

Ensuring our alliance wasn't bullied was one of the goals, but not the only goal. For what it's worth when we entered the war we had no clue of allies joining the war. We didn't even consider them into our initial plans. In the beginning there was no "winning" in conventional terms to be thought about. It was about defending ourselves & making a point that we weren't going to roll over. It was only after seeing what was done to us, did others volunteer assistance.

I'm not aware of the LPE/Fark issues, I've been rather busy with all of this so excuse my ignorance on that issue. I'm glad you found peace in a matter you found acceptable. In our scenario after multiple boundaries had been crossed, their tuck-tale effort of white peace was not acceptable.

I honestly don't care whether they accepted it or not. That's up to them to decide, not I.

Once again, when the war first started we had no plans for any of our friends to join. Hopefully after reading my response you can move on from that line of thinking. It was only after fully seeing what all had been done to us, did friends line up. We weren't going to decline their offer of assistance. As far as "high ground" is concerned, war is war. I'm not sure any alliance can come out of war looking spot-clean. Our concern was never attempting to be anything other than ourselves.

Hopefully that addresses your comments fully enough so that this issue can be laid to rest as it should have been long ago.

[Seth Muscarella]

to end this right: if this topic ever gets gravedug the remainder of this round, a full assault will be mounted against the offending alliance by both blackwater and NAAW.

The End.

;-P

[Latenighthobo]

I'm pretty sure only the latter will bother doing it, if at all.

[seixas]

Woah, been a while since I posted, nice to see the streets of CNTE being cleaned up. TUF luck NAAW

[popsumpot]

I'm pretty sure only the latter will bother doing it, if at all.

ZOMG! He SPOKE! git him!

[Latenighthobo]

Ok? Come get me then.

[Smallfrog]

Unfortunately none of you are in range.