Ramirus Maximus Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 "White peace" has been used on Planet Bob in an infantile form for some time now. Alliances which cannot bring themselves to simply surrender (and thus end whatever war they are in), try to weasle out by asking for a white peace. Other times, the side which is winning will attempt to appear magnanimous by offering a white peace, which they also think is the same as ending the war. Both sides in such an arrangement are dumbing down terms from the other universe (OOC: the real world) for use here on Planet Bob. The plain fact is that white peace is not peace at all. In fact, it is merely an armistice which is never followed up on. To drive this point home with an example from the current situation; TOOL and Sparta are currently still at war. TOOL never surrendered to Sparta, Sparta never surrendered to TOOL, there were no negotiations for peace, only a "white peace", which as stated above is no peace at all, but merely a perpetual state of war with no battles. There are many other examples from current and historical conflicts on Planet Bob, so don't seize on this one point and ignore the rest. Why is this important for Planet Bob, you ask? Because if we're going to have pretend-politics, we should at least pretend to also recognize terminology correctly. Also it would be fascinating, instead of the same boring old "peace terms" and "white peace" and "decom this and that", to have defined endings, defined winners, defined losers, and not this vague mish-mash of stupidiy that has pervaded so-called alliance "politics" here since the beginning of time (OOC: since CN started). tl;dr - You're doing it wrong, stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 ...What? Seriously, huh? If two alliances sign a treaty ending a war, the war is over, terms or no terms. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatmagnus Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) White peace just means no terms. Alliances got stomped. EDIT: Meaning one side one and one side lost. Its easy to figure out which in this case. Edited May 1, 2009 by greatmagnus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Cousteau Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I never liked the choice of the name "Karma" simply because i knew our side would not actually give the hegemony what was coming to them. I dont exactly agree with the OP, but i can see your point. Without a clear surrender stating that they are defeated, alliances aren't really ending the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I never liked the choice of the name "Karma" simply because i knew our side would not actually give the hegemony what was coming to them.I dont exactly agree with the OP, but i can see your point. Without a clear surrender stating that they are defeated, alliances aren't really ending the war. In retrospect "Mercy" might have been more fitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 "White peace" officially ends a state of war. Are you seriously suggesting that unless reparations are imposed or apologies are forced that peace cannot be achieved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think he's saying that the terms should be something like "TOOL surrenders to Sparta and admits defeat" instead of everyone just calling it a white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) I think he's saying that the terms should be something like "TOOL surrenders to Sparta and admits defeat" instead of everyone just calling it a white peace. Is it not Sparta's sovereign right to agree to any peace terms they choose to? If they wish to sign a peace treaty that does not either side officially surrendering, who are you to tell them not to? -Bama EDIT: That's directed at the OP, not you. Edited May 1, 2009 by BamaBuc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think he's saying that the terms should be something like "TOOL surrenders to Sparta and admits defeat" instead of everyone just calling it a white peace. That would clearly define the losers and winners of a battle, but that's about it. An admittance of defeat or lack thereof does not have an effect on whether or not peace is valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) The last time I checked, alliances determine whether or not they are at war. I don't think they need your help in telling them when conflict has and has not come to an end. Also, are you really trying to claim that every peace that has come without terms is the product of somebody weasling out of something? Or somebody's PR stunt to appear fair and merciful? Can't victors simply inflict damage on the battlefield, and leave it at that? I find it very hard to believe that every "white peace" given so far has been a farce. Edited May 1, 2009 by savethecheerleader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Perhaps I'm wrong, as I never try to suggest I know what Ram is talking about, but I believe his point was that the term "White Peace" here, is far different from the term "White Peace" in the old world (ooc - Earth). Therefore, I think he's basically saying, stop calling it white peace if it's not truly a white peace. The reason behind this is in "White Peace" everything goes back to the way it was before the war. However in this case, we are giving "Uti possidetis" where each side keeps whatever it got during the war. Then again, I've lost myself many a times trying to keep up with Ram, so I'll let him elaborate further. Edited May 1, 2009 by HeraclesTheGreat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 A treaty between two powers which officially declares the war over is not the same as simply ending hostilities. I'm saying that regardless of whether you think white peace means peace, it just doesn't. It's a perpetual state of war. It's not that terms need to be set, or reps demanded, or apologies, or anything else you people have assumed. It's that the phrase "white peace" doesn't mean what you think it means, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 A treaty between two powers which officially declares the war over is not the same as simply ending hostilities.I'm saying that regardless of whether you think white peace means peace, it just doesn't. It's a perpetual state of war. It's not that terms need to be set, or reps demanded, or apologies, or anything else you people have assumed. It's that the phrase "white peace" doesn't mean what you think it means, nothing more. The "white peace = war" thing still eludes me. If two alliances do not consider themselves to be at war with one another, they are not at war. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Also: What Heracles said. /me claps briefly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The "white peace = war" thing still eludes me. If two alliances do not consider themselves to be at war with one another, they are not at war.-Bama Then it's not "white peace". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Well, white peace is really just the shorthand term people are using to describe the recent peace agreements. I don't think that the official wordings of these actually used the term. So, people mistakenly using the term are wrong, but your argument doesn't really affect the official status of the alliances involved. edit: Strike that, I just read some of them- the term is indeed used in the announcements. Well don't I feel silly. In any case, it's really just a matter of people misusing the term- I don't think it affects their status, as all parties have recognized a cessation of hostilities. In most cases, the surrendering party is specified, and in all of them they defeated alliance is required to remain neutral for the remainder of the war. So, victors have been defined, and terms handed out. I don't see any problem beyond the misuse of a term. Edited May 1, 2009 by savethecheerleader Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Well, white peace is really just the shorthand term people are using to describe the recent peace agreements. I don't think that the official wordings of these actually used the term. So, people mistakenly using the term are wrong, but your argument doesn't really affect the official status of the alliances involved.edit: Strike that, I just read some of them- the term is indeed used in the announcements. Well don't I feel silly. In any case, it's really just a matter of people misusing the term- I don't think it affects their status, as all parties have recognized a cessation of hostilities. In most cases, the surrendering party is specified, and in all of them they defeated alliance is required to remain neutral for the remainder of the war. So, victors have been defined, and terms handed out. I don't see any problem beyond the misuse of a term. One could argue that since the term is generally understood to mean what they're talking about, then in this sphere (OOC: CyberNations) it has an additional definition. It happens all the times with words, after all. Do you think "ball" meant "pitch outside the strike zone" before baseball? This is all a silly semantic issue that has no real bearing on anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Also: What Heracles said./me claps briefly. Holy crap - I understood Ram's point? /me runs to buy a lottery ticket EDIT: spelling Edited May 1, 2009 by HeraclesTheGreat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Considering there were terms on both sides of the Sparta/TOOL agreement that's a pretty terrible example. On a semantic level I suppose it's possible that "white peace" doesn't mean what it's normally used as in the OOC realm. But here, when both parties agree to cease hostilities and cease fighting, the war is over, whether there are official terms or not, and regardless of what it's called. Trying to be overly semantical about that is rather pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Blake Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) So, can I still keep calling it an armistice then? I don't think the term "white peace" is actually in our joint announcement if that matters at all. edit: guess not, seems that's supposed to only be temporary to discuss terms. Edited May 1, 2009 by William Blake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 But here, when both parties agree to cease hostilities and cease fighting, the war is over, whether there are official terms or not, and regardless of what it's called.Terms are irrelevant, terminology is not. Wars are over when there is an official peace treaty, which is usually the culmination of a surrender.Simply ceasing hostilities doesn't end a war. OOC example: The United States has been at war with North Korea for 59 years. If you want an end to war, but you don't want "terms", simply sign a peace treaty that doesn't include any terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Terms are irrelevant, terminology is not. Wars are over when there is an official peace treaty, which is usually the culmination of a surrender.Simply ceasing hostilities doesn't end a war. OOC example: The United States has been at war with North Korea for 59 years. If you want an end to war, but you don't want "terms", simply sign a peace treaty that doesn't include any terms. TOOL and Sparta (And the others) did sign terms. I'd say that it wasn't a white peace because there were actual stipulations and whatnot, but there was a signed agreement that their war was over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savethecheerleader Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 TOOL and Sparta (And the others) did sign terms. I'd say that it wasn't a white peace because there were actual stipulations and whatnot, but there was a signed agreement that their war was over. Precisely. This is the case with all of the peace declarations so far. Some of them may have erroneously used the term "white peace". That is all. They came to a formal agreement that a state of war no longer existed between their alliances- call the agreement whatever you want, that's peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Precisely. This is the case with all of the peace declarations so far. Some of them may have erroneously used the term "white peace". That is all. They came to a formal agreement that a state of war no longer existed between their alliances- call the agreement whatever you want, that's peace. Frankly, I'm opposed to the use of words at all, in formal context. We should just draw pictures. Grub probably still has some crayons left over from the last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 TOOL and Sparta (And the others) did sign terms. I'd say that it wasn't a white peace because there were actual stipulations and whatnot, but there was a signed agreement that their war was over.A white peace has nothing to do with stipulations, but you're right that a signed agreement counts as a peace treaty.Precisely. This is the case with all of the peace declarations so far. Some of them may have erroneously used the term "white peace". That is all. They came to a formal agreement that a state of war no longer existed between their alliances- call the agreement whatever you want, that's peace.Exactly.People simply have no grasp of the terminology they're using. This is to be expected when people play pretend-geopolitics, but then everyone goes around acting like their alliance announcements are right, true and proper and they feel like very important people. People need to stop getting all big-in-the-britches. 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.