Qaianna 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. (OOC) The United States never declared war there, to my knowledge. As far as the terminology ... perhaps the alliances agree to an oral contract to stop fighting, go home, and call it a war. Is that so wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (OOC) The United States never declared war there, to my knowledge.Not Constitutionally, no. But a Presidential directive has been held (as recently as 2005) as a formal declaration by the International War Council, and pretty much every legal opinion since James Madison.As far as the terminology ... perhaps the alliances agree to an oral contract to stop fighting, go home, and call it a war. Is that so wrong? Nope. Alliances can do just that...they'll still be at war, and if they don't mind continuing to be at war, then fine, heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nope. Alliances can do just that...they'll still be at war, and if they don't mind continuing to be at war, then fine, heh. You missed the bit where I said they'd agree that the war's over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epik High Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 When "white peace" is used on Planet Bob, I know to understand it by the socially constructed definition that comes from the way it's been used in CN history/discourse. I don't think there is any need to clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 You missed the bit where I said they'd agree that the war's over. They can state that they are fish too. Doesn't mean they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 In retrospect "Mercy" might have been more fitting. good call on that one Nausea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 They can state that they are fish too. Doesn't mean they are. You realize you're just being a pedantic $@!, right? If there is a mutual agreement to end the war, then the war is over. That's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 If there is a mutual agreement to end the war, then the war is over. That's it.And if there's a mutual agreement to end the war, that is not a "white peace", it's a peace treaty. Pedantry is a virtue, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Ram in top form . My personal opinion is that the semantics are rather insignificant because the fewest players pretend to "simulate real world politics". If two parties agree to stop the fight, be it with terms or without, with a signed agreement or without, then everyone just goes home and for both sides the war is over. For some elawyers maybe not, but since both sides simply ignore them, it doesn't matter at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Ram in top form .My personal opinion is that the semantics are rather insignificant because the fewest players pretend to "simulate real world politics". If two parties agree to stop the fight, be it with terms or without, with a signed agreement or without, then everyone just goes home and for both sides the war is over. For some elawyers maybe not, but since both sides simply ignore them, it doesn't matter at all. Syzygy in top form. Everyone drools over Syzygy's prose, but all I hear is: "I dun care, stfu, hurhur lol". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celtics464 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 This reminds me of the US involvement in Vietnam and Korea. The US did not win either war and then came up with some stupid treaty to settle on national borders, etc to save face. I'd argue White Peace is better than making up some farse about a winner and loser and having to come up with unnecessary surrender terms. That will only lead to disdain. Remember how WW2 started after Germany was forced into paying reparations. I would also argue that white peace would only be acceptable when one side fears losing the war, or fears not being able to force/monitor the terms of a surrender. Then there are the few who are just happy to be out of fighting and want to move on but this is rare and not exactly the best approach to building a top alliance when you allow your nations to fight a war, take hits, and then just continue on your merry way. That is not a proper strategy when trying to gain superiority. Odds are white peace will almost always come about through the fear of war and having to fight either now or in the future again if the terms of surrender are not met or opposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I would also argue that white peace would only be acceptable when one side fears losing the war, or fears not being able to force/monitor the terms of a surrender. Then there are the few who are just happy to be out of fighting and want to move on but this is rare and not exactly the best approach to building a top alliance when you allow your nations to fight a war, take hits, and then just continue on your merry way. That is not a proper strategy when trying to gain superiority. Odds are white peace will almost always come about through the fear of war and having to fight either now or in the future again if the terms of surrender are not met or opposed.You make some good points, but they are points for another thread. This thread is a discussion of the actual terminology of "white peace" (and other words/phrases), not of the application of it(them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celtics464 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 You make some good points, but they are points for another thread. This thread is a discussion of the actual terminology of "white peace" (and other words/phrases), not of the application of it(them). fair enough. although i would argue that from the elimination of these blanket terms it may actually increase conflict because people are not going to want to admit defeat etc in accepting peace terms. it allows both sides to save face and move on. and if its a lopsided war then it will be pretty obvious who won or lost anyways. and does it really matter if its announced as an armistice etc as long as the fighting stops? either way everyone else knows the conflict is over and that the alliances involved will be ending hostilities with one another, for the time being at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 , for the time being at least.It's that part that makes the terminology relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 OP doesn't understand politics. A white peace does not result in a state of "permanent warfare". That is called tensions, which are only natural followed by a conflict. The only reason for your concern, Ramirus Maximus, is that neither of the two parties will have been decimated beyond repair or, more importantly, lose their independence. White peace is not "inconclusive" unless, naturally, as one of the combatants, you are seeking to eliminate any possibility of retribution against yourself from your rival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) White peace is not a state of perpetual war, the key word is peace. Edited May 2, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 OP doesn't understand politics.On the contrary, I do. However, since Planet Bob doesn't have politics, that's hardly relevant here, no?The make-believe that goes on on Planet Bob, with erroneous definitions and seldom understood terms, generally copied from [ooc]websites[ic] without really knowing what they mean, can scarcely be called politics. But I digress. A white peace does not result in a state of "permanent warfare".Since a white peace is merely a permanent cease fire with no formal agreement to end a war, the counter to your claim is inherent in the definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 (edited) But I digress.Since a white peace is merely a permanent cease fire with no formal agreement to end a war, the counter to your claim is inherent in the definition. The official definition below. "when alliances declare peace in a conflict without having to surrender" The white peace itself is the formal agreement of peace or an end to hostilities. Wars can have a different outcome to one nation defeating another. Its not a ceasefire, permanent or temporary, its much more than that. It can also be a total defeat. White peaceWhite peace refers to when alliances declare peace in a conflict without having to surrender, pay reparations, etc.... Edited May 3, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 This is wrong on so many levels, [ooc]the first being the use of RL as a standard in an IC forum[/ooc]. In regards to the Cyberverse, the only workable definition of White Peace is the conventional adaption used currently. That which provides all parties with a clean end to the conflict, no stipulations. That ends the war, thus the war is over. Whether the opposing parties maintain their pre-war predispositions have no bearing on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 This is wrong on so many levels, [ooc]the first being the use of RL as a standard in an IC forum[/ooc].I suppose it is kind of crazy to think that people here could actually accommodate even then simplest of standards. I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with Ivan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vhalen Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I suppose it is kind of crazy to think that people here could actually accommodate even then simplest of standards. I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with Ivan. Color me confused, because I could've sworn his comments were more on the "(OOC)RL doesn't really matter, clearly different rules are applied here" side of things, which, from what I've been able to see here, was kind of opposite you. Though, to be honest, I never saw much of a big deal in this whole topic, so I don't know why I keep posting. Maybe I should just go to sleep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramirus Maximus Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I could've sworn his comments were more on the "(OOC)RL doesn't really matter, clearly different rules are applied here" side of thingsYes, and I admit that he is correct. Clearly the denizens of Planet Bob aren't able to adhere to the slightest of standards. My mistake.I suppose this thread can be closed, given that I've admitted defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Not sure if "you're all too stupid to get it" counts as conceding the point, though you could make a case for rage quitting. 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.