Petrovich4 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Lol, fair enough. I do agree that we are both right as to where we are coming from personally, however, if all the evidence was laid out from end to end supporting both our sides, I don't know which would have more I will decline to provide such evidence, as I was asked very nicely to remember this thread is not about Echelon. With that, I take my leave and hope some other thread that I can make ad hominem attacks and such comes along soon Cool, cool And for the last time, congrats on peace everyone! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 AB you've been an ideal ally in this war, sorry we brought you in against somebody who would go and take things personally. How, from reading the terms, would you say GOD "takes things personally." These are standard reps with standard surrender clauses and in no where does it make for any kind of "personal vendetta" demands Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mixoux Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 How, from reading the terms, would you say GOD "takes things personally." These are standard reps with standard surrender clauses and in no where does it make for any kind of "personal vendetta" demands Obviously because we didn't make peace right away, nor did we offer white peace, we're taking things personally. Although I'd like to point out that if it truly were that personal to us, this thread wouldn't even be here right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...;hl=&st=950to http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?a...hl=&st=1050 I don't see a lot of moral outrage about reps or peace terms there. In fact, I thought I saw some help on how to disable MP carrying nations as part of peace terms. Imagine that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaitlinK Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) AB you've been an ideal ally in this war, sorry we brought you in and threw you against somebody who you were woefully mismatched against. Sorry we didnt care as much about you as we did about our own infra. There fixed it for ya... no thanks needed! Edit: fixed Edited May 18, 2009 by KaitlinK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Although I'd like to point out that if it truly were that personal to us, this thread wouldn't even be here right now. This more than anything. o7 GOD / o7 Nemesis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostlin Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 First of all, I find this really hilarious how anyone can claim these terms were done out of vengeance. ANY of them. The terms include demilitarization for only a month, buying tech at the standard rate, and the cancellation of one treaty, which I imagine anyone could resign after the terms are over. Putting this in perspective, how is this not lenient? I imagine the term involving Echelon involves reasons that only GOD knows (pardon the pun) and that if Xiph wanted you to know, he'd tell you--but this is hardly the secret terms of yesteryear. Frankly, anything Xiphosis does that may be a little controversial gets an automatic 'Dear Admin, Xiphosis is being evil again! Save us from the evil of the Dear Leader of GOD!' Secondly, after Echelon threw BLEU under a bus and then claimed the last year or so was a huge mistake, we're so sorry, the fact that they're trying to spin themselves as honorable is hilarious, particularly since they admitted they watch out for their own concerns above their treaty partners. Maybe Echelon really is up front with their partners. As in 'we will admit up front that you are a puppet for our ambitions, to be discarded at a later date when it's no longer convenient.' I can't say the power to dependability ratio would be worth it, however. Thirdly, best of luck to Aurora Borealis. From all accounts, you fought really hard, and I can't help but applaud that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Anglia Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 There fixed it for ya... no thanks needed!Edit: fixed With apologies to AB for dragging this off topic, I would like to state categorically that the decision was theirs and theirs alone to make. We never made them do anything, and in fact encouraged them to get out a week or better ago. If you want to fault us for that, do what you must to sleep at night. It is to their credit as an alliance that they volunteered to stick it out as long as they did, even to their own detriment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 With apologies to AB for dragging this off topic, I would like to state categorically that the decision was theirs and theirs alone to make. We never made them do anything, and in fact encouraged them to get out a week or better ago. If you want to fault us for that, do what you must to sleep at night. It is to their credit as an alliance that they volunteered to stick it out as long as they did, even to their own detriment. They volunteered to stay in? Is that what they call it thse days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalai Protoss Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Oh my GOD. Congrats on peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Anglia Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 They volunteered to stay in? Is that what they call it thse days?Well when I say that I will clarify it was not US obligating them to stay in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) There's nothing preventing them resigning one tomorrow or, if that would make you mad, in one month once all terms expire... so why even bother? <<< Karma The power has gotten to them already? The hope is that AB will take this time to re-evaluate their treaty with Echelon and choose not to sign with you again. Note the lack of NV and MK cancellations? AB will be able to sign a treaty with Echelon again if they really want to once their terms expire. If you are confident that they will, then there is nothing to complain about, yeah? Your last comment is particularly amusing coming from a member of Echelon. It's a safe assumption that had Echelon been on the winning end of a war against Ragnarok, GOD, Monos Archein, or Nemesis we would not receive terms half as kind as these and myself, Xiphosis, KaitlinK, and many other members of government would be forced out of power and/or ZIed into oblivion. For and announcement primarily concerning AB, Echelon has been mentioned an awful lot. I hope you guys aren't too spent to reply in the next topic concerning us ! You are the subject of this thread due to A.) being involved in Article 1 of the terms and B.) one of your members made note of said term as "interesting". Let's not pretend your toadie of an alliance is of any sort of actual importance. Edit: have I been out of RoK so long that I now can't spell it? Edited May 18, 2009 by Van Hoo III Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaitlinK Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) I would like to state categorically that the decision was theirs and theirs alone to make. We never made them do anything, and in fact encouraged them to get out a week or better ago. If you want to fault us for that, do what you must to sleep at night. It is to their credit as an alliance that they volunteered to stick it out as long as they did, even to their own detriment. So Echelon never told AB to target GOD? I find that laughable considering they used the oA clause in your former treaty to enter the war. Echelon threw their allies to slaughter and everyone knows well enough that once you enter a war and are losing you dont get to decide when its time to leave... stating that you encouraged them to get out just sounds silly as if it was their choice at that point. Edited May 18, 2009 by KaitlinK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Well when I say that I will clarify it was not US obligating them to stay in. Kait was getting at the fact that Echelon requested AB attack GOD, which was a... well, stupid match up no matter how you look at it. Or is that not correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Well when I say that I will clarify it was not US obligating them to stay in. I believe the point is that Echelon told them who they would be attacking. If you did not realize there would be bad blood there, then you do not know your allies and their history as well as you think. I can, however, say that a lot of that can now be put behind us due to this conflict. I suppose we can thank Echelon for that at least? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Now this is a challenge I would love to see answered. This mean I cant now because I dont have a long track record? I don't see a lot of moral outrage about reps or peace terms there. In fact, I thought I saw some help on how to disable MP carrying nations as part of peace terms.Imagine that. The 1st is a DoW and the second is a white peace, did you read them? For the record Air me, well complaining anyway... http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...st&p=481316 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...st&p=481295 Edited May 18, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostlin Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Your last comment is particularly amusing coming from a member of Echelon. It's a safe assumption that had Echelon been on the winning end of a war against Ragnaok, GOD, Monos Archein, or Nemesis we would not receive terms half as kind as these and myself, Xiphosis, KaitlinK, and many other members of government would be forced out of power and/or ZIed into oblivion. Hoo, didn't they do this to one of your government members once? Just sayin'. I can't disagree with this man's points, I couldn't help but go one step closer and say anyone from SF and TT forced to surrender to Echelon wouldn't receive similar terms. I think hilarity would be met at the suggestion of my forcing out of power, but I'll check with my membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) For the record Air me.http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...st&p=481316 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...st&p=481295 For the record... you like arguing with Xiphosis? Those post didn't have much to do with... anything. Edited May 18, 2009 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMeTheHorizon Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Children, children, now now. These are not harsh terms in any degree, they can sign or resign the treaty as soon as the terms expire. If they are really great friends as they say it'll be resigned and they will boast about how the war and forced suspension of the treaty didn't stop them or over come there bonds. And if they don't resign it, everyone will say see what GOD and company did they freed AB from there horrible allies. The people targeting this thread for there rhetoric from both sides need to calm down. Rethink about the whole thread and see that this is not a big deal in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KMbanana Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 My comment on "taking it personally" doesn't have anything to do with the severity of the terms or how long it took AB to get them, but GOD's apparent belief that the wars against them were because of some deep-rooted grudge against them instead of GOD simply being a member of Karma who their ally was at war with and requested assistance with. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I just don't see why there are people upset with AB coming in on the oA part of our treaty when it was immediately apparent from day 1 that the defense portion of the treaty would bring AB into the war anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 My comment on "taking it personally" doesn't have anything to do with the severity of the terms or how long it took AB to get them, but GOD's apparent belief that the wars against them were because of some deep-rooted grudge against them instead of GOD simply being a member of Karma who their ally was at war with and requested assistance with. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I just don't see why there are people upset with AB coming in on the oA part of our treaty when it was immediately apparent from day 1 that the defense portion of the treaty would bring AB into the war anyways. I don't really care about anything AB did. Well, except attacking Kait without a DoW for no reason. But otherwise, I don't really care. Why Echelon would throw AB at GOD, though. That I still haven't worked out. What were you thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R&R-Viking Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 My comment on "taking it personally" doesn't have anything to do with the severity of the terms or how long it took AB to get them, but GOD's apparent belief that the wars against them were because of some deep-rooted grudge against them instead of GOD simply being a member of Karma who their ally was at war with and requested assistance with. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I just don't see why there are people upset with AB coming in on the oA part of our treaty when it was immediately apparent from day 1 that the defense portion of the treaty would bring AB into the war anyways. Or, ya know, we like to stomp the people that attacked us for a while and peace out when we're done. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Anglia Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Or, ya know, we like to stomp the people that attacked us for a while and peace out when we're done. Just sayin'.Said it once, I'll say it again. Just because you say we're evil, even if you say it a lot, still doesn't make it so. I would have quoted what I said a few hours ago, but really all anyone with a mind of their own needs to do is backread one page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Said it once, I'll say it again. Just because you say we're evil, even if you say it a lot, still doesn't make it so. I would have quoted what I said a few hours ago, but really all anyone with a mind of their own needs to do is backread one page. What did your post have to do with his post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Congratulations AB, I'm glad you found peace. We're eternally grateful for your support. However... ...this is curious. What is GOD/Nemesis' vested interest in our treaty with AB? They've agreed to surrender and not further partake in this conflict, effectively rendering the treaty inactive for the duration of the war... why force them to cancel it? Further, when it's quite unanimously frowned upon for a treaty to be instantly 'dissolved' at one signatory's discretion, why's it suddenly okay because a third-party says so? There's nothing preventing them resigning one tomorrow or, if that would make you mad, in one month once all terms expire... so why even bother? <<< Karma The power has gotten to them already? lol Karma those are super harsh terms amirite? EDIT: Also, anyone who joins a war expecting white peace is foolish at best. I really don't see where peoples' baseless moral outrage comes from. Sure, harsh terms on the scale we've seen previously shouldn't be issued 99% of the time but to have the gall to expect white peace is absolutely astounding. Edited May 18, 2009 by Matthew Conrad 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.