Adrian LaCroix Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 If I had to guess, I'd say that it was more that FAN isn't quite so willing as GATO to take on an indefinite viceroy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 FAN doesn't really want the kind of peace we would offer, what with terms and conditions and such. They already accepted that peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 They already accepted that peace Accepted, yes, abided by, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 FAN doesn't really want the kind of peace we would offer, what with terms and conditions and such. Unless of course those terms were phrased such as "NPO pays a gazillion dollars in reparations to FAN". FAN once accepted the kind of peace you would offer. I doubt they would be willing to trust the NPO again. The CB for the current war against FAN is nitpickery. The loophole you used against them is rarely seen in peace terms today for that very reason, and some provisions are written specifically to prevent it. The NPO has signed such terms IIRC tacitly rejecting the spirit of the FAN war CB. Besides, if we made peace with FAN, who would train our alpha and beta battalions? Don't contradict your Emperor. FAN isn't fighting the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Accepted, yes, abided by, no. Technically speaking, the terms were violated to some extent by both parties, but I'll let one of CN's great e-lawyers handle explaining that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Yea. Wonder what the 'peace' would be like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) FAN once accepted the kind of peace you would offer. I doubt they would be willing to trust the NPO again.The CB for the current war against FAN is nitpickery. The loophole you used against them is rarely seen in peace terms today for that very reason, and some provisions are written specifically to prevent it. The NPO has signed such terms IIRC tacitly rejecting the spirit of the FAN war CB. Don't contradict your Emperor. FAN isn't fighting the war. They're not all in peace mode, but most of them are, and it is to them Emperor Revenge is referring. FAN did not abide by the peace terms. You can argue that the terms were harsh and difficult to abide by, but if that is the case then they shouldn't have accepted them in the first place. NPO abided by the terms of the peace treaty, but not to FAN's "satisfaction". This does not make their failure to abide by the terms acceptable. FAN did accept the terms offered to them, and then refused to abide by them. Edited April 10, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 meh, getting FAN peace, in theory, isn't extremely complicated... just unlikely: if another Continuum alliance signed an MDP with FAN, via article III.G of the Mobius Accords, hostile actions could not occur between NPO and FAN. This could have 2 possible outcomes; either 1) NPO ceases hostilities, or 2) NPO leaves continuum in order to keep fighting FAN. Granted, the above is based on a rather loose interpretation of the Mobius Accords, but given that the scenario is already highly unlikely, i doubt it matters Q has to post potential treaties on the Q forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) FAN did not abide by the peace terms. You can argue that the terms were harsh and difficult to abide by, but if that is the case then they shouldn't have accepted them in the first place. FAN doesn't really want the kind of peace we would offer, what with terms and conditions and such. I guess you meant they wouldn't want terms that were harsh and difficult to abide by, which you agree they shouldn't have accepted. So you should be in full agreement with FAN that they should not accept the kind of peace you would offer. Edited April 10, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 I guess you meant they wouldn't want terms that were harsh and difficult to abide by, which you agree they shouldn't have accepted. So you should be in full agreement with FAN that they should not accept the kind of peace you would offer. Not at all, if FAN was willing to actually abide by their peace treaty obligations and served their time, I would welcome them back into the CN community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Something tells me FAN won't be getting peace until the cows come home. Or in our case; leave home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Not at all, if FAN was willing to actually abide by their peace treaty obligations and served their time, I would welcome them back into the CN community. You're not following. The kind of peace terms NPO offered were harsh and difficult to abide by. You said that FAN should have never accepted these terms. These are the kind of terms NPO would offer FAN, which is to say that you agree with FAN in your earlier assessment of them not wanting to accept terms the NPO would offer. Unless you believe that FAN would get easier terms this time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) You're not following. The kind of peace terms NPO offered were harsh and difficult to abide by. You said that FAN should have never accepted these terms. These are the kind of terms NPO would offer FAN, which is to say that you agree with FAN in your earlier assessment of them not wanting to accept terms the NPO would offer.Unless you believe that FAN would get easier terms this time Perhaps they would, that is up to Emperor Revenge. Noone should sign a treaty that they have no intention of abiding by, as it is a waste of paper. The terms were harsh and difficult to abide by, but FAN accepted them. The basic fact is that FAN did not abide by their treaty obligations. What else is there to discuss? Edited April 10, 2009 by James Dahl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingSuck Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 and the point of this thread was? Moo/NPO have been saying that for as long as I can remember, it's really not that new or interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King DrunkWino Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Just a point of clarification: FAN has publicly said many times that they'd only accept a white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 James, while i was in MK we received ~weekly updates with members who weren't abiding to the peace terms (this being post-war). There were generally few and the exceptions were small but it did happen. Now how are you expecting FAN to accept the peace when you never treated them this way and jumped on them for a statistical detail that had pretty much 0 significance and of which they weren't really notified. Now i'd point you to the fact that the reasoning for which they didn't get peace was another than the CB that was shown, but well i doubt you're the type that would listen to reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 See FAN, just come out of peace mode and you'll get peace! Slaves are made in such ways. The last time Moo-Cows spoke of peace I was a boy. And many FAN nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he had them hanged. I was very young, but I remember Moo-Cows' notion of peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Nearly the entire alliance exited peace mode to blitz NPO during the UJW, they then had to slowly fight their way *back* into peace mode. It's already happened, Moo:/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 James, while i was in MK we received ~weekly updates with members who weren't abiding to the peace terms (this being post-war). There were generally few and the exceptions were small but it did happen.Now how are you expecting FAN to accept the peace when you never treated them this way and jumped on them for a statistical detail that had pretty much 0 significance and of which they weren't really notified. Now i'd point you to the fact that the reasoning for which they didn't get peace was another than the CB that was shown, but well i doubt you're the type that would listen to reason Statistical Detail? They plain old didn't abide by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 That's ridiculous. You merely want to see them crushed, and to finally claim your long awaited victory in the FAN territories. FAN, just wait it out, and one day you'll be coming out of peace, to their dismay, not to their joy. One day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyFallout Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 @ ES, you are awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayOvfEnnay Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Perhaps they would, that is up to Emperor Revenge.Noone should sign a treaty that they have no intention of abiding by, as it is a waste of paper. The terms were harsh and difficult to abide by, but FAN accepted them. The basic fact is that FAN did not abide by their treaty obligations. What else is there to discuss? There's a difference between "difficult to abide by" and 'incredibly vague, with a side of NPO not following either'. One part you're ignoring is that NPO was to deal with anyone who didn't follow these terms separately from FAN as an alliance. Besides this it was proven that the majority of people not abiding by the terms were not even registered on FAN forums, let alone members. You still ended up hitting FAN as a whole. Not to mention that VietFAN 2 started as a result of FAN not following peace terms. This war has lasted an incredibly long time. Now let's forget the CB for VietFAN 1 for a second here, because ultimately I agree that FAN did walk into VietFAN 1, and they declared peace for VietFAN 1. Let's think about 2 separately here. FAN has been attacked and picked apart for the longest of any other alliance in the CN world for not following the loose peaceterms that were stated over a year ago. Rather than giving a proper conclusion, I'll leave it open. I don't see it happening that they'll get peace not because they would automatically start plotting to overtake NPO, but because in the future they'd obviously become a large competitor with NPO. They're the best fighters in the game whether or not you choose to believe it, and they'd have the strongest set of lower tier fighters in the game. Something that NPO lacks. So just the fact that FAN could become a competitor scares Pacifica into not allowing FAN to ever get out. I do think, however, that if NPO were to lose a great war at some point soon, and be knocked down to about where Polar was at the end of the last large war then FAN would have a shot at getting peace. But we'd have to see. Also @ Tungsten: You're also forgetting that the Q alliance that signed with FAN could be kicked out of Q, thus NPO would still be abiding because they wouldn't have a treaty with that alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 (edited) Perhaps they would, that is up to Emperor Revenge.Noone should sign a treaty that they have no intention of abiding by, as it is a waste of paper. The terms were harsh and difficult to abide by, but FAN accepted them. The basic fact is that FAN did not abide by their treaty obligations. What else is there to discuss? The fact that the CB was a technicality of the surrender terms that alliances (including the NPO) now take steps to avoid is extremely relevant given the war is ongoing and most of us are not self-denying platitude-regurgitating automatons. Edited April 10, 2009 by Sal Paradise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Statistical Detail? They plain old didn't abide by them. Decomming soldiers takes a few seconds - it's only a few clicks for god's sake. It's not like nukes where you can buy one daily and where letting someone keep them is actually risky. If you see some guys not abiding to terms send a warning. And another. Then start attacking offenders. It's common sense. Declaring on a whole alliance all of sudden because you just happened to notice a bigger part didn't make those few clicks isn't common sense. It's just a public display for a realpolitik reason - FAN would have very likely came back and nuke NPO again - hell even your gov admitted it. Idk why you guys keep trying so hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted April 10, 2009 Report Share Posted April 10, 2009 Statistical Detail? They plain old didn't abide by them. As I said when the video was first released, you probably would get a better public response if you didnt repeat multiple nations multiple times. 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.