Joint Announcement from The Sweet Oblivion and The Order of the Paradox

[cookavich]

So you're applauding one alliance for giving terms while being pissed at another for giving white peace. That's at least what I've taken from this, but I admit I could very easily be wrong.

No, I take issue with the fact that TOP is trying to gain PR points for what amounts to a middle finger pointed towards GOD.

[Delta1212]

You think any alliance on the karma side could recover from that horrible PR?

If things were the way they were when NPO ran the game, it wouldn't matter. (well, it would eventually, but consequences three years down the line isn't all that concerning. Everyone loses at some point regardless). It's nice to see you can still use hyperbole against people you disagree with.

As the length of a CN political discussion increases, the probability of a person comparing those they are arguing against to NPO approaches one.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Delta1212

[youwish959]

No, I take issue with the fact that TOP is trying to gain PR points for what amounts to a middle finger pointed towards GOD.

What about GOD's middle finger to TOP by not inviting them to discussions? I'm not gonna lie I'd probably do the same thing as TOP did in a situation such as this.

[Poobah]

If things were the way they were when NPO ran the game, it wouldn't matter. (well, it would eventually, but consequences three years down the line isn't all that concerning. Everyone loses at some point regardless). It's nice to see you can still use hyperbole against people you disagree with.

As the length of a CN political discussion increases, the probability of a person comparing those they are arguing against to NPO approaches one.

Since you brought up the NPO, the difference between the NPO coalition and the Karma coalitions is that karma is not the same kind of unity that NPO's blocs did (although it can be argued unity through fear), and one of the grievances cited against Pacifica has been the harsh terms they have given.

EDIT: Typo

Edited May 31, 2009 by Poobah

[Delta1212]

What about GOD's middle finger to TOP by not inviting them to discussions? I'm not gonna lie I'd probably do the same thing as TOP did in a situation such as this.

GOD went around to all involved parties asking if there were terms they wanted added or objected to, including TOP by their own admission. They then invited everyone including TOP and TSO to the negotiation requested by Echelon. That was the extent of all the discussions that ever happened. We were, in fact, in the process of figuring out which terms were necessary, which terms weren't, what could be lightened, whatever in the talks with Echelon. Unfortunately, TOP walked out and then really nothing constructive happened and talks broke down.

[Bob Janova]

Anyways, I can guarantee that Echelon won't accept terms that are over and above ... next to nothing.

I doubt you will keep this up, but if you do ... enjoy your long war. You won't get any sympathy if the reason you are still at war is because you refuse to accept reasonable terms.

[x Tela x]

I doubt you will keep this up, but if you do ... enjoy your long war. You won't get any sympathy if the reason you are still at war is because you refuse to accept reasonable terms.

Definition of reasonable, please.

Edit because I forgot to reply to this:

TOP is against harsh terms now? Well, that's a change. You sure seemed to enjoy imposing those terms on Polaris. But wait, this time its against your good old buddies in the the Hegemony. Boo hoo. If you guys really cared about them you'd be dying right beside them, and frankly, TSO should. The crimes of its members have still yet to be punished.

Unless times have really changed, honestly, there's not really much kinship with Echelon & TOP. I know that Tela and Crymson rarely ever saw eye to eye. Never was any real malice on either end, as far as I know, but there wasn't any huggl*ing or anything. Perhaps that's changed, but I really don't think you can legitimately call Echelon "good old buddies" of TOP's.

Whether they did this as a PR ploy or simply as their way of standing their ground on what they'd decided none of us outside of their government/voting booths will know for certain.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Lady Gaga

[RandomInterrupt]

I doubt you will keep this up, but if you do ... enjoy your long war. You won't get any sympathy if the reason you are still at war is because you refuse to accept reasonable terms.

Because History has shown that refusing decent reps has the tendency to make them more lenient the next time. Right?

[Mixoux]

What about GOD's middle finger to TOP by not inviting them to discussions? I'm not gonna lie I'd probably do the same thing as TOP did in a situation such as this.

The thing is that we did. Everyone was consulted prior, and everyone was present at the meeting (including TOP and TSO).

[Crymson]

GOD went around to all involved parties asking if there were terms they wanted added or objected to, including TOP by their own admission. They then invited everyone including TOP and TSO to the negotiation requested by Echelon. That was the extent of all the discussions that ever happened. We were, in fact, in the process of figuring out which terms were necessary, which terms weren't, what could be lightened, whatever in the talks with Echelon. Unfortunately, TOP walked out and then really nothing constructive happened and talks broke down.

Standard operating procedure in the offering of terms is to confirm the approval of the terms of all alliances involved in a war before offering those terms to the enemy. To confirm that TOP and TSO were in agreement to the terms in question would have taken a very short amount of time, and no effort to do so was done. Indeed, I personally thought that the discussion we were being invited to was a discussion of the terms that were to be offered; I had no idea whatsoever that it was planned to offer the terms to Echelon at that point. The fact that such was done came as a total surprise to me, both given that TOP and TSO had not voiced agreement to the terms and given that neither of us (at the very least, certainly not TOP) were informed of any plan to offer terms to Echelon at any specific time.

We and TSO walked out after we watched the terms offered without our agreement.

Please check up on your facts.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Crymson

[youwish959]

GOD went around to all involved parties asking if there were terms they wanted added or objected to, including TOP by their own admission. They then invited everyone including TOP and TSO to the negotiation requested by Echelon. That was the extent of all the discussions that ever happened. We were, in fact, in the process of figuring out which terms were necessary, which terms weren't, what could be lightened, whatever in the talks with Echelon. Unfortunately, TOP walked out and then really nothing constructive happened and talks broke down.

So basically this is a case of "he said she said" ?

Edited May 31, 2009 by youwish959

[Bob Janova]

Definition of reasonable, please.

It's in the eye of the beholder, but certainly some reps would come under 'reasonable'.

[astronaut jones]

So basically this is a case of "he said she said" ?

I say you're pretty fly, for a white guy.

[Delta1212]

Standard operating procedure in the offering of terms is to confirm the approval of the terms of all alliances involved in a war before offering those terms to the enemy. To confirm that TOP and TSO were in agreement to the terms in question would have taken a very short amount of time, and no effort to do so was done. Indeed, I personally thought that the discussion we were being invited to was a discussion of the terms that were to be offered; I had no idea whatsoever that it was planned to offer the terms to Echelon at that point. The fact that such was done came as a total surprise to me, both given that TOP and TSO had not voiced agreement to the terms and given that neither of us (at the very least, certainly not TOP) were informed of any plan to offer terms to Echelon at any specific time.

We and TSO walked out after we watched the terms offered without our agreement.

Please check up on your facts.

Except that this:

As it turned out, the terms were discussed but we were excluded from the initial discussions; terms were formulated and agreed to by the other alliances involved, and only afterward were they shown to TSO and TOP for input.

Is false. GOD went around to each alliance individually and asked for input on terms. There were no discussions for you to be excluded from. Maybe most alliances had their input before you did, but when you go to a dozen alliances one by one, someone winds up near the end. The first real group discussion was in the channel with Echelon. I'm sorry if you slipped through the cracks on getting double checked with or whatever, but you were in the room and perfectly capable of speaking up. This wasn't a particularly organized effort. GOD was the only one actively working on getting any kind of terms together, which isn't easy when you are dealing with this many alliances that need to be contacted.

You have every right to seek white peace, but saying you were excluded from discussions is false. You had the same level of input as everyone else. Maybe you didn't feel what happened was enough, but it's not like you were stepping up to the plate to coordinate the peace and do it better. The accusation that you were excluded, again, is categorically false. I will assume it was a simple mistake on your part rather than deliberate.

[Rebel Virginia]

Unless times have really changed, honestly, there's not really much kinship with Echelon & TOP. I know that Tela and Crymson rarely ever saw eye to eye. Never was any real malice on either end, as far as I know, but there wasn't any huggl*ing or anything. Perhaps that's changed, but I really don't think you can legitimately call Echelon "good old buddies" of TOP's.

Whether they did this as a PR ploy or simply as their way of standing their ground on what they'd decided none of us outside of their government/voting booths will know for certain.

I never said it was huggle level. You both had a common bond, as in you were both Pacifican pawns, and strive to be again after this war. TOP would like nothing more than to see the NPO dominate again, and I'll be sure to call them on that.

[Leetopia II]

I doubt you will keep this up, but if you do ... enjoy your long war. You won't get any sympathy if the reason you are still at war is because you refuse to accept reasonable terms.

Nice edit there.

I think it's fair though, you want payback from past wars, well we could give back all the tech we've ever gotten from wars. Buuuuut you guys wouldn't be happy with only a couple thousand tech, now would you? We're less than half the size we were back then, a lot of the people that benefited from those wars are long gone, and "karma" comes knocking on the doors of people that had nothing to do with it looking for exorbitant reps.

You're welcome to keep trying your offers, but they aren't going to accept something ridiculous.

[Delta1212]

So basically this is a case of "he said she said" ?

The kind of input TOP wanted seems not to have happened because of the mess that was organizing terms in the first place. It's less he said she said, and more TOP assuming things that didn't happen.

[Heracles the Great]

I have a great deal of respect for TOP and I applaud their decision to stand by their values and not fold to peer pressure, even if it might not be the "popular" thing to do. As for those who have decided to mock their decision - I can't help but laugh at you and wonder what the future might hold for you.

[SpiderJerusalem]

Standard operating procedure in the offering of terms is to confirm the approval of the terms of all alliances involved in a war before offering those terms to the enemy.

Standard operating procedure in fighting a war is to fight your opponents along with all alliances involved on your side in a war and not to offer your enemy nuclear agreements.

[Rebel Virginia]

I can't help but laugh at you and wonder what the future might hold for you.

So, calling TOP on their nonsense is now a ZIable offense? Really? Free thought is something to be scolded on? Is that what we fought for. Thank you TOP! NPO taught you well.

But no, I will not be silenced by threats. I am not afraid of you, for I know the truth of what you have planned.

Standard operating procedure in fighting a war is to fight your opponents along with all alliances involved on your side in a war and not to offer your enemy nuclear agreements.

But TOP might get hurt fighting a war? It's not their way of doing things, taking risks that is. Rather have others do the dirty work and then reap the benefits of their work. Took that page right of the NPO playbook I might say. I'm onto them I tell you.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Rebel Virginia

[Heracles the Great]

So, calling TOP on their nonsense is now a ZIable offense? Really? Free thought is something to be scolded on? Is that what we fought for. Thank you TOP! NPO taught you well.

But no, I will not be silenced by threats. I am not afraid of you, for I know the truth of what you have planned.

Because that's exactly what I said... Imagine that... RV putting words in someones mouth :roll:

[Chickenzilla]

Because that's exactly what I said... Imagine that... RV putting words in someones mouth :roll:

What he said is what I interperated from your posts as well. :/

[necAnt]

So, calling TOP on their nonsense is now a ZIable offense? Really? Free thought is something to be scolded on? Is that what we fought for. Thank you TOP! NPO taught you well.

just an little info, hera isn´t an TOP member,

so you a) quoted the wrong person or

B) read his AA wrong

thank you.

[Mixoux]

Because that's exactly what I said... Imagine that... RV putting words in someones mouth :roll:

Your choice of words was still fairly threatening, though. (Not that I care in the least mind you)

I mean, here we've just been trolling and flaming each other without any real foreshadowing, and you go and make a comment on where we'll end up! Quite the prediction for an person not directly involved in this particular drama, don't you think?

edit: grammar

Edited May 31, 2009 by Mixoux

[Rebel Virginia]

Because that's exactly what I said... Imagine that... RV putting words in someones mouth :roll:

Could you please address my points instead of attacking my character (and for the record I am known to be a very objective person, with a balanced mind)? It is a known fact that despite contributing very little to the war effort, even going so far as agreeing to non-nuclear war with their "targets" to preserve their infrastructure, TOP has committed a great deal of meddling in peace discussions. Countless negotiations have fallen apart due to TOP's involvement, resulting in light peace terms for the various hegemony alliances. That was TOP's goal, to make sure that the NPO will be able to rebuild its old allies after this war by keeping them as intact as possible. TOP even pushed for white peace for IRON, after only a few weeks of fighting. Apparently TOP will be IRON's new master if my sources are correct. The answer is obvious. TOP is intentionally causing sectionalism, and you and your buddies in Citadel are blind to it. Congratulations on helping TOP build a better future for our Pacifican friends. I'm sure you'll be rewarded for your assistance one of these days.

just an little info, hera isn´t an TOP member,

so you a) quoted the wrong person or

B) read his AA wrong

thank you.

He's in Kronos. I know that. However, they love TOP so much I don't feel it makes a difference if they believe themselves to be "independent." They're puppets as far as I'm concerned.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Rebel Virginia