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

[NoFish]

I'm not questioning your committment to your allies in the UJW. And if you vouched for the NpO, kudos to you.

But wanting to hit Echelon to the point of disbandment? If you want to go there I'll meet you on the field soon enough.

We offered them terms last night. You know what wasn't in them? Disbandment. I don't know where you got that from but it's entirely false.

[Nizzle]

We offered them terms last night. You know what wasn't in them? Disbandment. I don't know where you got that from but it's entirely false.

I can't believe it took so long to offer terms. I presumed they were holding out, then I checked their NS this morning when this started.

[x Tela x]

We offered them terms last night. You know what wasn't in them? Disbandment. I don't know where you got that from but it's entirely false.

As if exorbitant reparation demands have not been used in the past with that goal in mind?

I'll admit, 400 & 35k is a far cry from "You will be our tech farm forever", but it's an awful lot to ask, when you look at the shape of Echelon, and even more when you add in the ridiculous restriction on who can pay those reps.

[King Srqt]

I can't believe it took so long to offer terms. I presumed they were holding out, then I checked their NS this morning when this started.

I never understood why the victorious party would have to say "ok here are some terms if you want out of the war" I would think that the losing alliance would have to make their desire to surrender known and then the victors would formulate terms.

Just seems to make more sense my way.

[Nizzle]

I never understood why the victorious party would have to say "ok here are some terms if you want out of the war" I would think that the losing alliance would have to make their desire to surrender known and then the victors would formulate terms.

Just seems to make more sense my way.

I suppose not being hell-bent on revenge would make a difference in how it appears.

Then again, some people just think different ways. Why stomp someone while they are down? That's how I view it.

[x Tela x]

I never understood why the victorious party would have to say "ok here are some terms if you want out of the war" I would think that the losing alliance would have to make their desire to surrender known and then the victors would formulate terms.

Just seems to make more sense my way.

Echelon couldn't leave until AB got peace - AB entered on their behalf. It took quite awhile for GOD to even consider granting AB peace, which I'm sure was Echelon's primary goal, on their own road to ending their wars.

[OneBallMan]

I have to say, you'd think that those most maligning TOP and TSO in this thread had won the war all by themselves. This war was over, I mean OVER, the second that TOP left tC. Talk about a Gladwellian Tipping Point. Don't believe me? Run the numbers through again, but with TOP still in tC and see who else they keep out/bring in. And don't act like it was a fait accompli before that, cause it wasn't.

That doesn't mean that TOP didn't put less than their full weight in this conflict, I'll leave others more accomplished to decide that, but it would be a very different world if your nukes were aimed at them, and not your knives at their throats.

Reps lead to hard feelings and knives out. Just ask Polar.

[King Srqt]

I suppose not being hell-bent on revenge would make a difference in how it appears.

Then again, some people just think different ways. Why stomp someone while they are down? That's how I view it.

Usually when someone desires to stop fighting they will make it known that it's what they desire. Why should one side have to keep checking in and saying "you ready to quit yet?"

Even if the victors aren't ready to give terms yet if the loser makes their desire to surrender known from the moment they desire it it makes for a much more sensible and efficient process.

[King Srqt]

I have to say, you'd think that those most maligning TOP and TSO in this thread had won the war all by themselves. This war was over, I mean OVER, the second that TOP left tC. Talk about a Gladwellian Tipping Point. Don't believe me? Run the numbers through again, but with TOP still in tC and see who else they keep out/bring in. And don't act like it was a fait accompli before that, cause it wasn't.

That doesn't mean that TOP didn't put less than their full weight in this conflict, I'll leave others more accomplished to decide that, but it would be a very different world if your nukes were aimed at them, and not your knives at their throats.

Reps lead to hard feelings and knives out. Just ask Polar.

I don't think anyone is questioning that it would have been a harder fight if TOP had entered on your side but entering on one side or the other is not the only option.

Especially not for TOP even if one side is a huge power bloc and even if the attacks started before they withdrew from said bloc.

[Ejayrazz]

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.

This. Is. Hilarious.

"So they can rebuild the NPO"...They aren't even allies with them, your assertion fails terribly unless you have some sort of..evidence to back this claim? ESPECIALLY when one of their closest allies intentionally dropped Q because of alliances like NPO and their ways of playing the game. Gremlins helped OG, we're bad aren't we? Yes, us Citadel buddies are blind I guess (facepalm), especially when you have played in this game for a good portion of your career inside of an alliance using allies as tools, not for simply being friends. You don't know Citadel. You're assumptions speak for itself, I am loving this whole "TOP is this, TOP is that". It is getting old, at least have some valid claims before making remarks.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Nizzle]

Usually when someone desires to stop fighting they will make it known that it's what they desire. Why should one side have to keep checking in and saying "you ready to quit yet?"

Even if the victors aren't ready to give terms yet if the loser makes their desire to surrender known from the moment they desire it it makes for a much more sensible and efficient process.

You can see how damaged your enemy is. You should already have a "goal" in mind when initiating an offensive war anyway. "OK, when we halve their NS we will offer them peace."

After all, it is up to the victor when peace is given. Also, how is surrendering equated to a "sensible and efficient process"?

Anyway, we aren't going to agree on this. You're too blood thirsty and I'm too nice.

[King Srqt]

You can see how damaged your enemy is. You should already have a "goal" in mind when initiating an offensive war anyway. "OK, when we halve their NS we will offer them peace."

After all, it is up to the victor when peace is given. Also, how is surrendering equated to a "sensible and efficient process"?

Anyway, we aren't going to agree on this. You're too blood thirsty and I'm too nice.

Yeah I sure am a bloodthirsty guy that pushed for white peace and lenient reps in any discussion I have ever had regarding surrenders in this or any other war. I hope you realize how much of a fool that comment made you look.

[Nizzle]

Yeah I sure am a bloodthirsty guy that pushed for white peace and lenient reps in any discussion I have ever had regarding surrenders in this or any other war. I hope you realize how much of a fool that comment made you look.

You sure had an issue with white peace for IRON.

Regardless, bloodthirsty does not necessarily apply to reparations. You defended Echelon getting stomped down to 1 million NS as it being "their fault for not asking for terms"....hence the label I applied. Gosh, that was difficult to detect based on our conversation.

[Heracles the Great]

I don't know, If TOP said prior to joining the war along with "Not Karma!" that they were going to ensure their friends in Hegemony got off lightly and without a full dosage of their own medicine we would rather they not join at all. Like I said it's sabotage, albeit without malice. I can't say the same for this latest move though to paint the alliances they fought alongside as villains.

I really doubt that bolded part - but maybe that's just me...

[Nizzle]

I really doubt that bolded part - but maybe that's just me...

Heracles, the war is won. They can begin to rewrite history to reflect whatever they want now and forget when desperation existed. TOP wasn't needed now, and before the next war I'm sure we'll hear about other alliances that weren't needed.

[King Srqt]

You sure had an issue with white peace for IRON.

Regardless, bloodthirsty does not necessarily apply to reparations. You defended Echelon getting stomped down to 1 million NS as it being "their fault for not asking for terms"....hence the label I applied. Gosh, that was difficult to detect based on our conversation.

I had an issue with the way people went about promising white peace not the peace itself. terms are up to the people who fight the surrendering alliance and I have made it clear many times that I would give alliances that entered solely via treaty white peace.

I just don't pretend that my views are the only reasonable views that exist.

You sure had an issue with white peace for IRON.

Regardless, bloodthirsty does not necessarily apply to reparations. You defended Echelon getting stomped down to 1 million NS as it being "their fault for not asking for terms"....hence the label I applied. Gosh, that was difficult to detect based on our conversation.

OOC: thats how surrendering works in the real world or have you never heard of "waving the white flag"

[Nizzle]

I had an issue with the way people went about promising white peace not the peace itself. terms are up to the people who fight the surrendering alliance and I have made it clear many times that I would give alliances that entered solely via treaty white peace.

I doubt that. IRON, Valhalla, MCXA, etc should get white peace, then? Anyway, this isn't my point.

I just don't pretend that my views are the only reasonable views that exist.

That makes two of us.

EDIT for your EDIT:

Yet again, that is indeed how surrendering CAN work...however, it does not have to work like that. Typically, if you keep going until the enemy says "Uncle" you are out for blood. If you have a pre-set goal, then this isn't the case.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Nizzle

[Scorbolt]

Regardless, bloodthirsty does not necessarily apply to reparations. You defended Echelon getting stomped down to 1 million NS as it being "their fault for not asking for terms"....hence the label I applied. Gosh, that was difficult to detect based on our conversation.

I would agree with Sqrt that it really is up to the defender to initiate a surrender. You know, wave the white flag, tap out, sort of thing. Individual surrender terms were given out after ~1 week of the war going on. To expect a belligerent alliance to simply be told 'okay ready for surrender terms?' is totally ridiculous as it is to call those who do not follow such a practice bloodthirsty.

In this case, it has simply been the nobility of Echelon, in keeping in to see their supporters out, which has kept them engaged so long. They engaged knowing that they might be faced with this circumstance and I don't see them complaining about it.

[R&R-Viking]

I don't see them complaining about it.

There's another thread that has that.

[Roadie]

Ok, so maybe bad word choice. Did you show Woody every bit of logged material? I understand why you wouldnt wish to go any further into what Woody did, but it is a pretty big deal and would change exactly how people viewed a very serious event that happened right before the war blew up.

Wouldn't change much from TPFs side. I doubt it would for many other hegemonites either, to be honest. And my impression (which could be wrong) is that the Karma side generally thinks reasonably well of Torns actions, so I doub't having more info would change much.

[Matthew Conrad]

I would agree with Sqrt that it really is up to the defender to initiate a surrender. You know, wave the white flag, tap out, sort of thing. Individual surrender terms were given out after ~1 week of the war going on. To expect a belligerent alliance to simply be told 'okay ready for surrender terms?' is totally ridiculous as it is to call those who do not follow such a practice bloodthirsty.

In this case, it has simply been the nobility of Echelon, in keeping in to see their supporters out, which has kept them engaged so long. They engaged knowing that they might be faced with this circumstance and I don't see them complaining about it.

To be honest, if you backtrack to the reparations thread about IRON, Echelon, and TPF you will notice many Echelon members saying that they deserve light-white peace. The "Heart of Echelon" thread can easily be seen as complaining also.

[Matthew Conrad]

And my impression (which could be wrong) is that the Karma side generally thinks reasonably well of Torns actions

I hope you mean apologizing for attacking OV

If not...

Were you around when this war started or are you just making stuff up now?

[Nizzle]

I would agree with Sqrt that it really is up to the defender to initiate a surrender. You know, wave the white flag, tap out, sort of thing. Individual surrender terms were given out after ~1 week of the war going on. To expect a belligerent alliance to simply be told 'okay ready for surrender terms?' is totally ridiculous as it is to call those who do not follow such a practice bloodthirsty.

In this case, it has simply been the nobility of Echelon, in keeping in to see their supporters out, which has kept them engaged so long. They engaged knowing that they might be faced with this circumstance and I don't see them complaining about it.

I believe in offering peace terms after sufficient punishment has been obtained. It was something I have always argued over. You cannot simply continue stomping an alliance into oblivion just because they haven't asked for peace. Perhaps they don't believe peace will be offered. There is such a thing as being gracious in victory.

Yes, I can also understand why Echelon is so low. However, I would have personally initiated dialogue sooner and worked with them to bring about peace after their punishment was meted out.

To be honest, if you backtrack to the reparations thread about IRON, Echelon, and TPF you will notice many Echelon members saying that they deserve light-white peace. The "Heart of Echelon" thread can easily be seen as complaining also.

Well, at this point I'm actually interested in seeing what reparations Echelon will be capable of paying out and in what time frame. I have not seen an alliance that low in quite some time.

[Roadie]

I hope you mean apologizing for attacking OV

If not...

Were you around when this war started or are you just making stuff up now?

That's part of what I'm talking about, yes. As for making something up, what part of my post would I be 'making up'?

[Matthew Conrad]

That's part of what I'm talking about, yes. As for making something up, what part of my post would I be 'making up'?

That's why I said "If". You would be making something up if you were referring to their DoW. Now that you have clarified, we're not in disagreement on this matter.