erikz Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 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 I spotted this in the op: Signed for Poison Clan, Chinatownbus - The Toad TwistedRebelDB47 - Master Killer Pooksland - The Centipede Syrik - The Snake So please, move your frustrations to your alliance boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dare0021 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Honestly, I don't see where the "where's our rep?" question is coming from. In the state both sides are ending up right now (maybe except for NPO and MK), reps on any alliance would likely hurt them a LOT more than any NPO rep did. But really, Congrats to Valhalla for sticking with us so far, and congrats on the generous terms. I, for one, think Valhalla has acted most honorably to all in this conflict. o/ Valhalla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 *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. Oh yea I forgot don't you want your alliance government to resign? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3x Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 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. I find it rather odd that you contradict what my leadership says. Would you care to provide the logs where PC leadership "made up these terms"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I find it rather odd that you contradict what my leadership says. Would you care to provide the logs where PC leadership "made up these terms"? Are you saying that PC did not agree to these terms or even that they were not discussed with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oinkoink12 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) I find it rather odd that you contradict what my leadership says. Would you care to provide the logs where PC leadership "made up these terms"? Valhalla have agreed to the following terms :. Valhalla formally surrenders to the collective forces of Umbrella, Kronos, Poison Clan, Random Insanity Alliance, Fark, Coalition of Royal Allied Powers, Internet Superheroes, and Alpha Omega.2. Valhalla agrees to declare neutrality for the rest of the current conflict and not aid any nation at war. 3. If any member of Valhalla changes their Alliance Affiliation to that of one that Karma(for our purposes everyone listed in the wiki) is at war with, their nation will immediately be open to attack. If any member of Valhalla's government changes their alliance affiliation to one at war with Karma, the alliance as a whole will be considered in violation. 3a. Violations will be addressed on a case by case basis. The following terms last for three months, beginning on May 9, lasting until August 9: 4 .Valhallan nations must decommission all naval units and will be restricted to 3 nukes per nation with a limit of 20 for the alliance as a whole. 4a. Nations with Weapons Research Complexes may not possess nukes. 5. All of Valhalla's treaties with multilateral military obligations(meaning MDPs, MDoAPs, and MADPs) are hereafter suspended. Clauses dealing with bloc treaties: 5a. In PEACE's case, Valhalla will not be able to partake in any actions pertaining to Articles IV and V of Posideon.(PEACE) 5b. For the Möbius Accords, Valhalla will not be able to participate in any actions covered by Article III. (Möbius) 6. No new treaties may be signed and no existing treaties may be upgraded. 6a. During this period Valhalla will be under the protection of Umbrella, Kronos, Poison Clan, and Random Insanity Alliance. 6b. No offensive war declarations are permitted during this time unless given authorization by the aforementioned alliances. 6c. Upon agreement from Valhalla's protectorates, Umbrella, Kronos, Poison Clan, and Random Insanity alliance pledge to jointly protect them alongside Valhalla. 7. While these terms are in effect, no external aid can be accepted by Valhallan nations. 7a. Aid from nations who leave Valhalla after these terms are put in place is exempt from this restriction with individual approval by the alliances to which Valhalla surrendered. Forwarding aid from outside sources through ex-Valhalla nations is prohibited. 7b. Aid from alliances charged with protecting Valhalla is exempt as well. 8. Valhalla will have 72 hours to come into compliance with the above terms. If the majority of the alliance is found to be in violation, a state of war shall resume. Individual violators will be given 48 hours notice to comply or be attacked until they choose to follow the terms Signed for Poison Clan, Chinatownbus - The Toad TwistedRebelDB47 - Master Killer Pooksland - The Centipede Syrik - The Snake here! Edited May 12, 2009 by oinkoink12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3x Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Are you saying that PC did not agree to these terms or even that they were not discussed with them? Obviously they agreed to them, they signed it. I am contesting the implication that PC gov't "made up" these terms, or even brought a white peace to the table. If discussed means being in the channel when these terms were presented, then I believe this to be the case. If discussed means to respect their requests, needs, and give them an opportunity to influence the final verdict, then I am doubtful. I am suggesting that alliances fighting under different circumstances (who admitted in this thread that in PC's situation they would have gotten reps) weren't willing to give in to anything other than White Peace for all involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Obviously they agreed to them, they signed it. I am contesting the implication that PC gov't "made up" these terms, or even brought a white peace to the table. If discussed means being in the channel when these terms were presented, then I believe this to be the case. If discussed means to respect their requests, needs, and give them an opportunity to influence the final verdict, then I am doubtful. I am suggesting that alliances fighting under different circumstances (who admitted in this thread that in PC's situation they would have gotten reps) weren't willing to give in to anything other than White Peace for all involved. Thank you for clarifying. Forcing this decision on PC is nothing I can see my leaders doing but I didn't have any part in these talks (obviously) so I'm just going to leave it at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Baffled at this turn of events. After actually reading all 50 pages I can QFT just about every post by Tyga, Airme, Stumpy and Ejarazz. If it wasnt Valhalla we were talking about I guess I could buy into the "hopefully they learned a lesson" line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobgoblin70 Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 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. Self defense is impeding their ability to continue the aggressive behavior. Whether it is only a month they would still be weaker than they would have been without the reparations. There is also the punishment aspect of it. You said it yourself...it took time for Polaris to grow... 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. Giving a "second chance" implies that this was a first offense. It wasn't. It has been a pattern of behavior of the alliance in question and of the Hegemony as a whole. To be the hypocrite you are suggesting I would be, I would first have to commit the affronts Valhalla has then complain about receiving harsh reparation demands. I have done neither. We all hate to be punished, but if you can't do the time, don't do the crime... I'm sure we all hope Valhalla has changed the way they will interact with the rest of the world, but one day of pretty talk in one thread is not enough to convince me. That will take time...a luxury sterner reparations may have given the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavii Posted May 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 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. Actually they just lost 2 *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. *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. Obviously they agreed to them, they signed it. I am contesting the implication that PC gov't "made up" these terms, or even brought a white peace to the table. If discussed means being in the channel when these terms were presented, then I believe this to be the case. If discussed means to respect their requests, needs, and give them an opportunity to influence the final verdict, then I am doubtful. I am suggesting that alliances fighting under different circumstances (who admitted in this thread that in PC's situation they would have gotten reps) weren't willing to give in to anything other than White Peace for all involved. I suggest you have a talk with Twisted or CTB before you "try" to know how this all went down. Your only making a fool of yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Regardless if you agree or disagree with the peace deal, there's little point in arguing about it further here, especially since it's a done deal. If you have any points of disagreement to make, do it in private. You'll get a far better reception and you'll get a better viewpoint on why what happened did happen. Who knows? You might even gain more respect for the respective parties for what they did, even if you disagree with their actions and vice versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3x Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I suggest you have a talk with Twisted or CTB before you "try" to know how this all went down. Your only making a fool of yourself. I suggest you stop assuming I haven't read their side of it, lest you make yourself the fool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tolkheleknar Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 I believe this discussion has outlived its usefulness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Good luck Valhalla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 (edited) What would you have done in your opponents position? I'm curious to know.Would you have done what you usually do, and inflict back breaking terms, or would you have been merciful, as they have been? I would have advised that we give white peace or as close to it as we could. As Ive been stating on the forums since this conflict began to the "lets demand 12 kajillion tech, 100 kajillion dollars" crowd; for whoever won this war it was going to be nigh on impossible to get reps from many defeated alliances. Unlike previous wars(*) this war to me was rather special as you are seeing the results of alliance wide permanent nuclear armament with so many nations having MP's and other military wonders along with a lesson thats finally been learnt after 3 years - keep a good warchest (our chancellor was away on that day ). Whilst you or I or indeed anyone can sit and demand whatever from a defeated foe; these days its just not worth the effort. What would you demand from an alliance like Poison Clan or hell, even Gramlins if you defeated them? "Hey guys we want XX billion techs or else we carry on fighting"; what alliance would be stupid enough to try that on? As Ive been posting from the outset, you can demand whatever you want; whether you will get it is another thing but in the mean time you have an alliance of 70 odd members, 95% of them have MP's, with the will and the cash to carry on dropping nukes till the cows come home. In the end youve had your lower and middle ranks utterly shredded; true your enemy has taken a pounding too but in the end you have no choice to back down on what was a ridiculous idea from the outset, your alliance has lost numerous members, add to that damage the alliance has taken in the mean time and itll likely be double what your original demand was anyway. So whats the point in demanding? With so many people armed to the teeth these days with the capability to do what I have already described its better not to bother with demands at all and just spend a few weeks nuking them to rubble then have a white peace. In my eyes white peace will become far more prevalent in the future through necessity rather than choice; though if anyone would really like to try taking out PC or Grams then demanding tech please do so; Ill be right here to heckle you Im glad we were up against the people we fought; it was a good fight and I had fun getting my nation blown to bits. Shout outs sent in private (*) Ill be honest and say the MK war could have been a brilliant example. I still dont fully understand why MK gave into such terms when the damage they were inflicting with NPO's lack of SDIs. It would have been interesting to have seen how long it would take with those nukes raining down for those terms to have been revised. edit: Edited May 12, 2009 by bill n ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 clearly a fake. they didn't have nukes back then. pfff BnT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurney Halleck Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Congrats to all involved for peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shingen Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 here's an idea. Demand reps but don't give the losers of the war any money. All you receive is just a bunch of freebies. Now that is what I call reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 This is strange. Whether you feel the terms are good, bad, or you're pretty much indifferent it's odd that a coalition labelling themselves as Karma would give terms that aren't karmic in the slightest. Congratulations on peace Valhalla. I hope you see these terms for what they truly are, a gift, and an invitation to change yourself from what you once were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ligolski Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 congrats on peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trout Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 ...Oh wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill n ted Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 (edited) here's an idea. Demand reps but don't give the losers of the war any money. All you receive is just a bunch of freebies. Now that is what I call reps. Ill admit this is clearly the most thought out post in this whole debate though I see a flaw in your thought process..... Isnt that how reps have always worked? Edited May 13, 2009 by bill n ted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 here's an idea. Demand reps but don't give the losers of the war any money. All you receive is just a bunch of freebies. Now that is what I call reps. We never wanted reps. =\ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3x Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 We never wanted reps. =\ What about everyone else? Did it matter? When did Umbrella become the straw that stirs the drink? Is this that New World Order thing that Karma is putting in place? 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.