Re: Valhalla

[HeinousOne]

I think he's referring to the alliances that had nothing to do with our war with Valhalla. In that case he's right, their opinion on what we should have set forth as terms didn't matter then and doesn't matter now.

Have you had any allies speak out negatively about the terms?

[Snowbeast]

Have you had any allies speak out negatively about the terms?

Kronos' allies are: Umbrella and Athens.

I'm pretty sure Umbrella hasn't spoken out against these terms as they are a signatory. As far as I've seen no Athens members have spoken out against them. I expect if anyone in Athens leadership had an issue with them they would approach us in private.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Snowbeast

[Monster]

I think he's referring to the alliances that had nothing to do with our war with Valhalla. In that case he's right, their opinion on what we should have set forth as terms didn't matter then and doesn't matter now.

Their opinions do matter, but I still didn't want to compromise my beliefs.

[HeinousOne]

Kronos' allies are: Umbrella and Athens.

I'm pretty sure Umbrella hasn't spoken out against these terms as they are a signatory. As far as I've seen no Athens members have spoken out against them. I expect if anyone in Athens leadership had an issue with them they would approach us in private.

Fair enough, now I understand why you do not care what anyone else thinks.

[Xavii]

I think we argued the issue regarding reps to death and back, but knowing OWF. I'm sure it won't stop just yet.

[Buds The Man]

As I said, these are just words. I certainly hope you are right but history suggests not.

No it doesn't. Uhtred is merely stating his opinion based on historical precedent. It is up to you to prove him wrong. For you to assert that the only issues between Valhalla and the STA are Pez and Uhtred not liking you betrays your lack of knowledge of the issue or shows that you are unwilling to acknowledge the actions of your alliance that created this dislike back during the UJW. I thought you were better than that, to be honest.

Every one has there oppinion tyga and as his is a govt oppinion i believe my previous statement to be true though you are correct the ball is in our court so to speak to carry the burden of proof.

Here you go Bud: my perspective on the last little bit.

I will accept that raydin and James Saama are overzealous and will leave their contributions out of this. I will start here:

After expressing a seemingly sincere desire for change, I offered a mild idea that I thought might help right your past. The response is evasive; it has lots of bright words and no substance. To be fair to The Pansy, as he asserts that he is not government I can't exactly fault him for it, and I will not cast aspersions on his character by suggesting that this post was not honest.

To follow it comes a similar point;

All pretty words and no substance, in spite of there being things you can do towards setting things right. If you want to convince me that you're different, make a concrete outline of what you're going to do differently. Still a reach? Absolutely. They weren't the posts I wanted to see, but they weren't bad posts. It sort of builds though. When it culminates in an absolute refusal to disavow BS terms it's especially ominous.

This post was what really made me change my mind:

The implied threat of coupling promises of your return to vengeance with a careful and brief list of those who will be spared reads to me as every indication of a return to the petty vindictiveness that Valhalla has savored in the past. It could be that it was just a really badly written post, but it certainly is enough to make me wary, and it's not until here that the tenor of my own posts changed accordingly (I have not been mindlessly bashing you for the whole thread, as you have accused me of).

Following that the leader of your alliance trots in with posts like this:

Now, I'm no english major, and I have a sneaking suspicion that ChefJoe isn't either, so forgive me if I have misinterpreted something here. These posts read to me as an assertion that what you have done in the past is what anybody would have done in the same situation, or what my own alliance is calling for. That's not true, and if it's really your mindset it doesn't bode well for the future.

Allow me to reiterate my position: I don't care if you guys pay a dime here if you've really turned your alliance around. I'm happy to see light terms. Some of your members' posts are nice to see, including your own, but I don't see a drop of remorse or of intent to change from your highest government here. If people have screwed this surrender up, and you guys return to where you were without learning your lesson, then this is sentencing another alliance guilty only of honoring its treaties to things like being crushed without opportunity to surrender, having their government ejected for ZI, and being yoked with 5-month surrender terms that include crippling reparations and wonder decoms.

I want to see real signs of change, not a handful of non-government members making vague but flowery posts. I eagerly and honestly look forward to you demonstrating that the naysayers here are misguided and cynical.

Belzegar this has been a long and hard day for many of us I will address these best that i can and then take my exit from the thread.

Pansy has pretty good credibility he doesnt just speak words to hear himself speak them. Hes a dick a lovable one but one none the less but when he says hes going to do something it generally gets done. KingSuck is simply showing support to him at this point and confirming our desire to come out of this better on the other side.

Tronix post i believe should be taken at face value I read no veiled threat in this at all simply a statement that we will not seek revenge on those who have treated us more than fairly. I see no reference to plans of revenge up on others here at all. I ask this in earnest could the bad blood between our alliance possibly allow you to read more in to something than is there. This is a honest question for i truly see nothing of what your saying about tronix post.

As far as CJs posts go I cannot speak as to his intentions what i read here is frustration over a 50 page thread that is a circular argument. Blunt sure we are not bitter in defeat but it is not something that is easy to swallow for anyone. His post concerning what we would have done for reps is spot on, if you read the hostility in this thread and the lack of people wanting to listen to what we say there is no point in even speculating. Blunt once again Sure but any less true No.

bitterness, anger, revenge, grudges and hate.

Humanities finest emotions.....

Also before you try, no im not saying I am not prey to all of the above too.

QUOTE (chefjoe @ May 11 2009, 07:03 PM)

To be frank, after reading this thread I find it hard to think anyone is more prone then anyone else to those emotions.

QUOTE (chefjoe @ May 11 2009, 07:24 PM)

Have you read this thread yet?

Or are you trying to really say its full of rainbows and puppydogs with no call for harsh terms? *notice I say 'harsh' becuase I believe these terms to not be that and be reflective of the pricepals of the alliances that were at war with us. For which they have earned my respect for (not for given 'easy' or 'light' terms) but by standing by their ideals even thru the mud being slung at them by their 'friends and allies'.*

IN these final postings he only relays what we all have seen in this thread HIGH emotions that cover the spectrum and admits that he himself is not above having these. I think he was partially joking to an extent though he did admit his humor meter was a bit low. The final post he out and out says hey hats off to these guys they fought us they won and were gracious in victory and have his and our alliances respect. That and they have stuck by their term regardless of what others have thought. I think a major problem we all face with one another is getting past reading between the lines we have been doing it for so long that perhaps weve begun putting things there that really arent. As I stated above to Tyga yep the ball is in our court and proof will be in action not just words. I believe our actions will prove a change not for your approval not for anything other than to improve our selves. With that said I will now bow out of this thread. I hope perhaps this may be a decent start of dialog not just with you on moving forward but with many other alliances as well.

Stumpy, Archon, Trace, Delta, Majik

o/ Umbrella

o/ Kronos

o/ RIA

o/ Fark

o/ Crap

once again your decision has not fallen on deaf ears. Gnight all.

[white majik]

Based on what Ive seen, you folks were completely uninterested in fair terms of punishment for Valhalla's many transgressions. I suppose it's your perogative, though, as no one else's feelings mattered, and if they want to punish Valhalla themselves, they can do so after you stop protecting them.

These terms are meant for this conflict. Not past "transgressions" as you put it. Everyones input THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE FIGHTING was taken into consideration. So really let it go, if you really have a problem with it either wait till our protection ends or dont, either way it wont bother me.

[Venizelos]

aw, just great.

i'm still waiting for when reps will be asked and some actually meaningful peace terms are given.

valhalla has been one of the most aggressive alliances in the H side

tems limiting militaries only assist in the growth of the alliance that lost the war.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Venizelos

[Dankbud]

This will be my last post in this thread.

Reps are worthless at this point in the game. All of these alliance that were given huge reps recently were able to regrow because nations are huge and wonders allow nations to rebuild at ridiculous rates. Even in the scenario where we got 10k tech from Val that is what, 100 tech from each Val nation on average exchanged between the 2 sides? That's mere pocket change. Nations that buy tech easily afford to do so so being abel to save 6m makes a minimal difference. And the small nations that deal gets them a free 3m, and in most alliances they get that 3m on a regular basis either thru tech deals or as a method of building that nation.

The impact of reps on either side at this point is not as great as it once was when nations were young at the hit was more impactful. The only way to meaningfully impact a nations or alliances ability grow as a whole is to have them decom wonders and improvements like factories and labor camps. PB is flooded with tech and money, it is what it has become.

Not sure how much sense I am making but I feel there is a point in there somewhere.

0/ booze

[Kryievla]

Here you go Bud: my perspective on the last little bit.

~ snip ~

Now, I'm no english major, and I have a sneaking suspicion that ChefJoe isn't either, so forgive me if I have misinterpreted something here. These posts read to me as an assertion that what you have done in the past is what anybody would have done in the same situation, or what my own alliance is calling for. That's not true, and if it's really your mindset it doesn't bode well for the future.

Allow me to reiterate my position: I don't care if you guys pay a dime here if you've really turned your alliance around. I'm happy to see light terms. Some of your members' posts are nice to see, including your own, but I don't see a drop of remorse or of intent to change from your highest government here. If people have screwed this surrender up, and you guys return to where you were without learning your lesson, then this is sentencing another alliance guilty only of honoring its treaties to things like being crushed without opportunity to surrender, having their government ejected for ZI, and being yoked with 5-month surrender terms that include crippling reparations and wonder decoms.

I want to see real signs of change, not a handful of non-government members making vague but flowery posts. I eagerly and honestly look forward to you demonstrating that the naysayers here are misguided and cynical.

I was quite touched by the unexpected show of mercy. I hadn't thought all that much of many in Karma before. People talking out both sides of their mouths never fails to get under my skin in a very special and unique way. Yet, here were these people that had been preaching this for quite some time, and they followed through. Mad respect from me, for that. (Yes, there are a couple few others that also are consistent with their stated principles, but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule.)

I mean to follow their example, and use all that is in my power to ensure that my alliance acts with as much honor and grace as we were shown. My primary motivator is not a sudden discovery of conscience. It is that these guys stuck their necks out for us by acting with the courage of their convictions. I should like to honor that, and them, by passing on their legacy. To do less would be, well, rather un-Kry-like

If you want more than flowery words, my guess is you will be waiting for when we next issue terms. Especially if the real change that you are seeking is in how we deal with the aftermath of wars.

[erikz]

Based on what Ive seen, you folks were completely uninterested in fair terms of punishment for Valhalla's many transgressions. I suppose it's your perogative, though, as no one else's feelings mattered, and if they want to punish Valhalla themselves, they can do so after you stop protecting them.

So what have you done in the past that we could punish you for now? The whole point of this war was to eleminate stuff like unfair terms for something people did 2 years ago. I'm very happy to see this kind of terms, even though I do not really like what Valhalla did in the past; they don't deserve terms like lets say GATO got.

And I'm very sure that if people decide to attack Valhalla after the terms have been served just to punish them for their transgressions a lot of alliances will jump in to protect them, lot's of them being the ones who just offered them peace. Nobody likes opportunists.

edit: spelling again...

Edited May 12, 2009 by erikz

[Orkules]

I was quite touched by the unexpected show of mercy. I hadn't thought all that much of many in Karma before. People talking out both sides of their mouths never fails to get under my skin in a very special and unique way. Yet, here were these people that had been preaching this for quite some time, and they followed through. Mad respect from me, for that. (Yes, there are a couple few others that also are consistent with their stated principles, but those tend to be the exception rather than the rule.)

I mean to follow their example, and use all that is in my power to ensure that my alliance acts with as much honor and grace as we were shown. My primary motivator is not a sudden discovery of conscience. It is that these guys stuck their necks out for us by acting with the courage of their convictions. I should like to honor that, and them, by passing on their legacy. To do less would be, well, rather un-Kry-like

If you want more than flowery words, my guess is you will be waiting for when we next issue terms. Especially if the real change that you are seeking is in how we deal with the aftermath of wars.

Kry, I know you far less than Stumpy does. But what I have seen I like. I respect you too. I'll trust you on this, I hope the rest Valhalla listens to you.

[Sir Keshav IV]

The meat is that every member of government that signed this (cept for valhala of course, kudos to them) ought to resign for screwing over the people who elected them, or placed enough trust in them to allow them to lead.

Whose interests are being served here? certainly not the general membership ...

You sir speak for the whole membership of Umbrella. We've been asking for our Tri's resignation for a long time. Guess I have to look for a better alliance now

Actually no, You don't know a thing on what we want as a general membership so don't try speaking for us

EDIT: Theres cake at the door on your way out. Hope you don't miss it

Edited May 12, 2009 by Sir Keshav IV

[Monster]

So what have you done in the past that we could punish you for now? The whole point of this war was to eleminate stuff like unfair terms for something people did 2 years ago. I'm very happy to see this kind of terms, even though I do not really like what Valhalla did in the past; they don't deserve terms like lets say GATO got.

And I'm very sure that if people decide to attack Valhalla after the terms have been served just to punish them for their transgressions a lot of alliances will jump in to protect them, lot's of them being the ones who just offered them peace. Nobody likes opportunists.

edit: spelling again...

One of the better posts in the thread. Someone understands us.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Nausea

[TehChron]

So what have you done in the past that we could punish you for now? The whole point of this war was to eleminate stuff like unfair terms for something people did 2 years ago. I'm very happy to see this kind of terms, even though I do not really like what Valhalla did in the past; they don't deserve terms like lets say GATO got.

And I'm very sure that if people decide to attack Valhalla after the terms have been served just to punish them for their transgressions a lot of alliances will jump in to protect them, lot's of them being the ones who just offered them peace. Nobody likes opportunists.

edit: spelling again...

If you feel I deserve retribution for advocating the complete dissolution of your alliance and taking direct part in constant harassment of your home, then do whatever you feel you can.

And Im sure more alliances would jump in to wipe out Valhalla than defend them if such a free-for-all were to occur.

[Hobgoblin70]

So what have you done in the past that we could punish you for now? The whole point of this war was to eleminate stuff like unfair terms for something people did 2 years ago. I'm very happy to see this kind of terms, even though I do not really like what Valhalla did in the past; they don't deserve terms like lets say GATO got.

And I'm very sure that if people decide to attack Valhalla after the terms have been served just to punish them for their transgressions a lot of alliances will jump in to protect them, lot's of them being the ones who just offered them peace. Nobody likes opportunists.

edit: spelling again...

not one of the better posts...

The point of the war was not to eliminate unfair terms, but to stop unjust wars from bully alliances. If crushing terms are the CN equivalent to murder, I hope you see the difference between assassination and self defense. Also, I've seen very little call for unfair terms, just comment that these were too light given the nature of the alliance involved.

[Alicia]

As far as I've seen no Athens members have spoken out against them.

I know at least one Athens member posted, The Corrupt Teacher.

EDIT: Link

Edited May 12, 2009 by Alicia

[Caliph]

Of the alliances that Echelon fought while I was around, only one received anything resembling harsh terms, that entered via treaty obligations. My signature is in the surrender thread, so there's not much I can say about it, other than I know that it was excessive. I honestly don't remember fighting MK at all. I don't think I personally did. I was probably mostly inactive at the time and just active enough to throw my name onto what people were doing at the time, but that's no excuse, because you're right. I most certainly would have agreed and pushed for the 10k tech that Echelon received as reparations. Egos grow big when you're at the top, and acting with impunity becomes habit forming I guess. I am acutely aware of my image, and how certain alliances were treated. I'm not defending it, though. To make it shorter, two wrongs don't make a right, basically. If Karma wants things to change, they would do well in not repeating the same actions that are ostensibly the reason they are fighting this war.

I will continue to disagree with this. Lenient surrender terms were given in GW1 for a multitude of reasons, one of which was that the alliances given terms refused to "sink to their level". They lacked the will to do what was necessary to make sure the actions were not repeated, instead they treated the NPO as if the NPO thought like them. I know the NPO will carry a grudge for this until all those who hit the NPO are rolled themselves. I know the NPO has many, many axes to grind, as do many of those who stood by NPO's side doing the same actions.

Echelon was there, doing the same actions. I know the high of being at the top of the food chain. I was in the WUT, I was in \m/ before we got sanctioned and was there when we disbanded, and flew the \m/ flag until I 'died' in my previous life. I know how being at the top changes your views, which is why I so strongly have a sense of justice, a sense to treat others how I want to be treated. If I see some unjust behavior, I will speak out and let people know.

I found your first post hypocritical, however this one perhaps has a hint of ...remorse? Repentense?

I am unsure, you offer no apology yet fully admit to doing what I stated you did. I was not aware you apologized to NADC for your (or your alliances) actions in the BLEU/NADC war, and I do commend you for that.

I'm not sure if you truly have changed, or would return to your old ways if put in power again. I have been both at the top and the bottom of this food chain. You are just now at the bottom, and thus your perspective has changed. Survival instinct, adapting to a changing world? Or is it a true change?

Time will tell.

Regarding harsh surrender terms, I am against extremely harsh surrender terms except for the most horrid of behavior. These terms were too light for what Valhalla has done. This war might not have caused Valhalla to change their ways, but it did send a wakeup call. However these terms will allow Valhalla, and other alliances, to come back soon, and if they so choose to hold a grudge against certain alliances there is nothing stopping them from carrying this off soon. Valhalla has benefited from harsh surrender terms, it seems fitting they should be on the recieving end of some reasonably strong surrender terms, and not these light ones.

As far as I knew at the time, we were fighting NADC in defense of Polaris. The evidence that was said to have existed simply did not. Out of the alliances in BLEU at the time, only one knew this. There was a specific post on Polaris forums from Assington stating something to the effect of, "We don't have evidence, but we know it's NADC."

I figured as much due to the same party line being spouted after I, and others, completely logically destroyed BLEU's (or rather Polaris') attempts at passing it off as a legit CB.

^ Oh, conspiracy theorists, rest easy. This post was screenshotted by one of your own high level members, so just don't, okay?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Care to enlighten me?

I saw this and other truths well after the war was completed. I apologized to NADC government myself not too long after that. As far as I know, they've forgiven me and Echelon, since they've now got a pretty good working relationship with Echelon, as allies.

I do comment you for the apology, and that was the just thing to do. NADC got rolled because BLEU, the supposed "savior" of CN, who saved us all from the Unjust menace, turned out to be exactly like us. And that was after we told everyone they were exactly like us, and they all said "nope thats not true".

Echelon might have changed,but the surrender terms for MK during the NoCB war as well as your treatement of \m/ and o ther alliances joining wars to honor treaties has made me think less of Echelon, and you, in the past.

I hope that your behavior has indeed changed for the better, and I for one look forward to seeing you in a new light, based on your current actions.

OOC:

Quite honestly, I know full well what my past actions have been, and I don't ascribe to the whole "new nation" crap, so I expect to be judged on all of my past actions - good and bad alike. If I were to decide to make another run in a government position somewhere, I certainly wouldn't ignore all of the many friendships and acquaintances that I've made in my time, so it would be silly to expect any enemies to treat me any differently.

Well I do appreciate you responding to me here when you could have simply ignored my post or wrote me off as some "idiot" who didn't know what he was saying. This is not my first incarnation here, I have been here in one form or another since GW3, and I do appreciate you actually responded to me instead of skipping over my posts, like others I call out in this manner do.

Oh hai, I can do this to.

This is probably the single most ignorant and hurtful thing you have ever posted in these forums.

1. Vir was long gone by then and had no "unctuous supporters", he had bugged out in the middle of the night and in doing so had dealt a big blow to morale within the alliance.

This was hardly the first. Ninja R and Liberal Extinction's removal from this plan of existence by the holy Admin (blessings and peace be upon him) have dealt us a harsh blow, one that we truly never recovered from. True, we still had contact with them, however we both know that if they were not banned you would never had made it into the Tri position so quick, and \m/ sure as hell would not have disbanded. R and LE could have kept our alliance together by sheer force of will. That will was lost when they were lost to us. You could not match their leadership, but this is no slight to you, there are not many leaders who could.

2. There is no beyond ZI you twit. Your nation goes inactive and you are deleted. \m/ was outnumbered more than three to one, with many of its top level nations staggered and in nuclear anarchy and a significant number of the rest nearing ZI. Even before Vir left we tried to start up a cycle of pulling people back into Peace Mode to regroup and at least attempt to counter attack and it just wasn't happening.

That is why we tried to surrender, and Sponge wouldn't let us because he wanted us to lose more NS. He didn't realize (or he realized perfectly, I can't decide which) that \m/'s morale was shot, as the war happened at our worse moment. The smiting of our 2 best leaders, the betrayal of those we called friend (Atlantis, NATO, TPF and their white peace, MCXA, the Initiative, etc), and then the OOC "attack" that was used to the utmost personal IC gain by certain individuals ...no, we didn't disband because we feared ZI, we disbanded because you and the other tris refused to let us fight on for our 'right' to be \m/ when the rest of the world condemned us for the actions that those who fought against against us performed by our side!

We should have fought to the ZI, and told Sponge where to shove those terms. Instead you led us on, lied to us, and hinted at some master plan while having us all surrender to Legion.

3. R allowed his stubbornness to get the best of him and still does to this day. He is still a hero of sorts to many and he deserves much credit. But Modgate wasn't his shining moment and blame others as much as you want, ultimately you must own what you post here.

Modgate was not R's fault, and you know it. Modgate was the result of an overzealous mod who got in way over his head who folded under pressure like a cheap lawn chair and sold out innocent people to save his own skin, as well as a crackdown of certain behavior that certain alliances were known for.

4. You don't know what would have happened because YOU were long gone and I thought learning something about life and discipline. The circumstances under which \m/ disbanded were *highly* unusual and it was a decision that was made NOT made lightly.

The circumstances regarding that have never been duplicated, and never will be. There was a geniune fear in the alliance that if we continued to be affilliated with \m/ that the powers that be would smite us down. Some of us were smote down for actions via this medium, and we chose to discontinue our participation. That was the smartest move we could have made then, and we should have stayed off this medium for longer than we did.

Sure the world hated us, but we were reeling internally. If we had anotehr month to finish setting up the new gov, to let the new gov get comfortable and used to everything, as well as letting membership get used to everything, it would have been different. If the UJP did things a little differently, it might have turned out completely different. However we can say what if's till the cows come home, whats done is done and I supported R then and will continue to support his decisions at the time.

5. I don't have to "spin" command decisions. I stand by them. You see, you are also calling WC and Jason8 cowards. The vote to disband amongst us was unanimous. Beyond that, you are calling men such as Robert E. Lee and Jonathan M. Wainwright cowards. Google their bios. Come back and tell *me* that their decision to put the lives of their troops ahead of their own personal vanity and the vanity of non-participants was the wrong thing to do.

The thing is a vote to disband the alliance should not have come from the tris, it should have been a membership wide vote.

I was knee deep in Polaris and Legion members when all of a sudden Vir bails. I was ready to go to the ZI and beyond for \m/, as were many in \m/. The tri tricked us and before long the decision was made, gov disbanded, and the alliance, or what was left, was forced to fend for ourselves when our leaders abandoned us in our moment of need.

See, I can bring up the past too, Hal. I know, I was there, as were many, many people. I don't agree with your decision then, and still don't. I know \m/ would have had to change, and we would have, however what burns me the most is that we got hit for the actions we did, but we didn't perform those actions alone, our "partners in crime" were on the other side, hitting us because we were so evil, yet they were right there with us doing it, and heck even called us in to honor the WUT.

Come off this high horse, Hal. It does not suit you.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Caliph

[erikz]

If you feel I deserve retribution for advocating the complete dissolution of your alliance and taking direct part in constant harassment of your home, then do whatever you feel you can.

And Im sure more alliances would jump in to wipe out Valhalla than defend them if such a free-for-all were to occur.

I'm sure they wouldn't, as the majority of alliances today, and the majority of NS today, is at the lenient peace terms side of the conflict, therefore these alliances will stand and fight for what they believe (something I truly believe).

not one of the better posts...

The point of the war was not to eliminate unfair terms, but to stop unjust wars from bully alliances. If crushing terms are the CN equivalent to murder, I hope you see the difference between assassination and self defense.

The war was about not being like the alliances upon which the 'Karma' alliances declared war. A large part of that is not offering terms with viceroyship, tens of thousands of tech to be shipped, wonders to be destroyed etc. etc. Also; Karma alliances do believe in protecting the alliances under terms, and I'm also sure they won't attack them on the last day of the terms' expiration just to pound people into eternal war.

So self defense is slowing down an alliance for a month, and then see them jump right up again? Look at where Polaris is right now; they're back at their former glory. The terms didn't slow them down any bit; they paid in time and grew like never before.

Also, I've seen very little call for unfair terms, just comment that these were too light given the nature of the alliance involved.

I don't think these terms are too light. Firstly; all people deserve a second chance and secondly why do something to others that you would hate to happen to yourself? That would make you a hypocrit sir.

[Il Principe]

Congratz Valhalle for getting peace. This seems reasonable terms. Valhalla has lost a lot of members and strenght so I think you were "punished" enough.

tems limiting militaries only assist in the growth of the alliance that lost the war.

I think you are right with this. And getting protection for #months removes the need to maintain warchests so they assist in a larger growth too.

Thats why I always laugh when I see those terms named harsh.

[b3x]

In case any of you were wondering, if Valhalla declared on us and we were on the defensive side against them, reps would have been levied. The whole "white peace" or lenient terms comes about because we were the aggrssors in this war. I cannot justify picking a fight, beating the crap out of my opponent and then stealing his money while calling him names or making him act like a pig.

That's our alliance, those are our beliefs. To us past transgression of Valhalla never factored into the terms since those transgressions were not against us as an alliance.

Why then were the targets of Valhala's aggression not allowed reps?

Edited May 12, 2009 by b3x

[oinkoink12]

Why then were the targets of Valhala's aggression not allowed reps?

Poison Clan?

I'll put them on my techdeal list aswell

[b3x]

You sir speak for the whole membership of Umbrella. We've been asking for our Tri's resignation for a long time. Guess I have to look for a better alliance now

Actually no, You don't know a thing on what we want as a general membership so don't try speaking for us

EDIT: Theres cake at the door on your way out. Hope you don't miss it

*sigh* so wrapped up in your misguided lessons in morality you don't know your $@! from a hole in the ground, and too pompous and arrogant to recognize it. I haven't put words in your mouth, so don't put them in mine.

Cake ... Karma is handing out a lot of cake. I expect it will still be on the breath of the peasants when they come for your heads.

[b3x]

Poison Clan?

I'll put them on my techdeal list aswell

Ahhh ... and here in essence is why white peace is gonna bite you in the $@! ... sense the sarcasm? that little tinge of delight, the glimmer of hope and the arrogance because they got off easy? this isnt what you want, the defeated trolling surrender threads ... didnt take long did it? man ... just a matter of time before they come back for you

[oinkoink12]

Ahhh ... and here in essence is why white peace is gonna bite you in the $@! ... sense the sarcasm? that little tinge of delight, the glimmer of hope and the arrogance because they got off easy? this isnt what you want, the defeated trolling surrender threads ... didnt take long did it? man ... just a matter of time before they come back for you

The sarcasm is because of people like you repeating the same old for the last 50 pages. Specially when your alliance made up these terms aswell, if you dont agree, talk to your leadership.

Edited May 12, 2009 by oinkoink12