My opinion on the war, the CB, and assorted other things.

[WarriorConcept]

First and last.

Sorry for the off-topic post, but GWII was supposed to be even, just legion and odn backed out. Otherwise it was still fairly even I believe.

Why mhawk agreed to white peace at that moment, I do not know. I suppose we won't know his thoughts on it until he returns from his sabbatical.

I was under the impression mhawk was already gone by the time even the first white peace offer was given.

Edited January 11, 2010 by WarriorConcept

[Penkala]

Following me around like a stray dog is becoming very funny.

I'm just on a roll pointing out dumb arguments out the past few days. Care to answer any of my points, or just make up more unsubstantiated comments and then move on when they're debunked?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Penkala

[Hyperbad]

i am talkin about the whole PM thing itself. that is not a rebuttal in regards to my stating that CC had a pathetic showing of 24 war declarations spread across 14+ alliances. honestly, nothing is really a rebuttal for that as that is 1.7 war declarations per alliance (at 14 total alliances, less if there were more alliances that DoWed).

my argument in regards to their PM and hitting sooner have nothing to do with the argument that their actual war declarations in game were just downright pathetic.

so again. this is not a rebuttal at all just a mashing of facts in an attempt to rebuttal something that honestly is a laughingstock.

After rereading our exchange I think I see where the confusion came in. I was using the statement I originally quoted as a transition into your earlier assertions that they could have put up a more effective fight had they declared earlier out of your belief that because they had a mass of nations in peace mode that automatically equates to high member activity. I apologize for not being clear enough earlier. I should have quoted the earlier comments you made that I was more directly responding to rather then merely using the transition straight away. I felt at the time though that through the content of my post and how it was phrased, with your earlier assertions, and my later clarifications as to what was my point of contention it was perfectly clear what I was actually responding to. At no point did I see a problem with the view that there was an apparent failure in the CC carrying out their plans when they decided to go through with them. With this now clarified I hope we are now on the same page and can move on in our discussion. As such I shall remove the portions relevant to this confusion out of the rest of your response unless you wish to formulate a new. I apologize for the confusion.

[Dochartaigh]

After rereading our exchange I think I see where the confusion came in. I was using the statement I originally quoted as a transition into your earlier assertions that they could have put up a more effective fight had they declared earlier out of your belief that because they had a mass of nations in peace mode that automatically equates to high member activity. I apologize for not being clear enough earlier. I should have quoted the earlier comments you made that I was more directly responding to rather then merely using the transition straight away. I felt at the time though that through the content of my post and how it was phrased, with your earlier assertions, and my later clarifications as to what was my point of contention it was perfectly clear what I was actually responding to. At no point did I see a problem with the view that there was an apparent failure in the CC carrying out their plans when they decided to go through with them. With this now clarified I hope we are now on the same page and can move on in our discussion. As such I shall remove the portions relevant to this confusion out of the rest of your response unless you wish to formulate a new. I apologize for the confusion.

i do believe i proved that they had high member activity between Dec 27th and Dec 30th. at least with the four alliances that Haf gave percentages on. while those are rough i would not doubt that they are not close to the actual number as again, most alliances do not have a huge percentage of their alliance just chillin in PM during peace time which means that most if not all of those in PM by Dec 30th would have not been in PM on Dec 27th. just because it is the holidays does not mean people want to incur the economic penalties associated with PM especially when it was not clear to TPF or CC that there was gonna be a war on Dec 27th until it was essentially launched by Athens/GOD/RoK/\m/.

i saw your point to be honest, just not the relevancy of mixing the two together. in the PM situation i could see the use of holidays as a reason for lack of activity and feel that at least with IRON, NATO, Invicta, FEAR the activity was high enough to allow for an effective counter-attack. the other situation of the DoWs/war declarations, since they DoWed, i am assuming that low activity amongst members was no longer an issue so the 24 war declarations were lackluster.

so, i was never entirely confused just stating that the two arguments are basically two different events that while comparable cannot be truly mixed together as you seemed wanton to do.

[Hyperbad]

i do believe i proved that they had high member activity between Dec 27th and Dec 30th. at least with the four alliances that Haf gave percentages on. while those are rough i would not doubt that they are not close to the actual number as again, most alliances do not have a huge percentage of their alliance just chillin in PM during peace time which means that most if not all of those in PM by Dec 30th would have not been in PM on Dec 27th. just because it is the holidays does not mean people want to incur the economic penalties associated with PM especially when it was not clear to TPF or CC that there was gonna be a war on Dec 27th until it was essentially launched by Athens/GOD/RoK/\m/.

i saw your point to be honest, just not the relevancy of mixing the two together. in the PM situation i could see the use of holidays as a reason for lack of activity and feel that at least with IRON, NATO, Invicta, FEAR the activity was high enough to allow for an effective counter-attack. the other situation of the DoWs/war declarations, since they DoWed, i am assuming that low activity amongst members was no longer an issue so the 24 war declarations were lackluster.

so, i was never entirely confused just stating that the two arguments are basically two different events that while comparable cannot be truly mixed together as you seemed wanton to do.

The reason for mixing the two was to investigate the reasons behind the lack of declarations when the counter attack was launched and to see what was the probability of them having an influenced had the attacks been launched sooner. There was a week of notice that war was more then likely coming to the CC and still we had so few declarations. Thus while there are some differences between the two points in time the question of what happened that there was such a poor response is left open. It is possible that they took it as meaning they were just looking to protect themselves or that the constant alert made them become complacent feeling their involvement will be delayed a while longer. Both such explanations play into the idea that an earlier declaration would have been much more effective then what had happened. I would believe a noticeable even if barely significant number of members would be in peace mode for extended holidays and you illustrated beautifully that a number of players were responsive to their government's message. I wager more players would have declared war if it was launched sooner on their end. I suppose I'll ask what strength in nations you would consider an effective counter requiring

[Dochartaigh]

The reason for mixing the two was to investigate the reasons behind the lack of declarations when the counter attack was launched and to see what was the probability of them having an influenced had the attacks been launched sooner. There was a week of notice that war was more then likely coming to the CC and still we had so few declarations. Thus while there are some differences between the two points in time the question of what happened that there was such a poor response is left open. It is possible that they took it as meaning they were just looking to protect themselves or that the constant alert made them become complacent feeling their involvement will be delayed a while longer. Both such explanations play into the idea that an earlier declaration would have been much more effective then what had happened. I would believe a noticeable even if barely significant number of members would be in peace mode for extended holidays and you illustrated beautifully that a number of players were responsive to their government's message. I wager more players would have declared war if it was launched sooner on their end. I suppose I'll ask what strength in nations you would consider an effective counter requiring

ahhh.... okay. so i was a bit confused i guess. aiight. this is a good clarification for why you mixed the two. i got it now lawlz. my bad.

[Haflinger]

where is this policy exactly? can you back that up cuz this is honestly the first time i am hearing about this.

Our policy for war has been fairly consistent, and we never made any bones that if someone attacked us, it was going to hurt a lot.

White peace doesn't hurt a lot.

When asked about the CCC thing in the context of imposing insane terms on people Xiph doesn't like, the usual GOD deflection is to reply that GOD attacked CCC and so Xiph's usual rules of "Declare on me, win or get killed" don't apply.

However, note that the CCC terms included a permanent charter change term.

[Dochartaigh]

White peace doesn't hurt a lot.

When asked about the CCC thing in the context of imposing insane terms on people Xiph doesn't like, the usual GOD deflection is to reply that GOD attacked CCC and so Xiph's usual rules of "Declare on me, win or get killed" don't apply.

However, note that the CCC terms included a permanent charter change term.

are you kidding me? stating that GOD was going to bring the pain is talking about the war. it means that GOD will fight back as hard as possible for as long as possible. realize also that he is talking about GOD being attacked and not the aggressor. typically if an alliance is attacked it is with an overwhelming force. neither does that state anywhere that GOD will always demand reps or terms if they win a war. it is a phrase discussing what GOD will do in terms of fighting, should some alliance(s) foolishly decide to hit GOD.

you need to learn lingo my friend. seriously. the twisting and warping of that phrase was ridiculous even for your side Haf.

[bros]

what has my topic devolved into

[Fantastico]

what has my topic devolved into

Epicness, that's what. Only you could formulate a topic so grand that everything thus far contained is on topic!

edit: and pretty damn interesting, too.

Edited January 12, 2010 by Fantastico

[Il Impero Romano]

White peace doesn't hurt a lot.

When asked about the CCC thing in the context of imposing insane terms on people Xiph doesn't like, the usual GOD deflection is to reply that GOD attacked CCC and so Xiph's usual rules of "Declare on me, win or get killed" don't apply.

However, note that the CCC terms included a permanent charter change term.

I refuse to believe that you are really oblivious enough to actually think that the post you quoted means GOD has an actual policy of always demanding reps from war. Nevermind the fact that there are examples to show otherwise, drawing that conclusion from Xiphs statement in your post is just plain silly.

Assuming your not utterly lost in regards to past events and interpretation of statements in general, did you really expect you could just say GOD has a policy and people would assume it exists and dislike them for it? I mean unless you are really, really bad with things, that's the only motive I can think of behind your claim.

[Jebbie]

well either that or he is a terrible poster

[Kzoppistan]

what has my topic devolved into

I had that exact same experience with a thread I made once.

The minute you take the hand off the wheel, the insipid arguments will invade your thread just like all the others, as once the topic of the thread is digested it becomes little more than another battlefield for the ideological struggle.

Overall, a good read. Thanks for posting.

[Haflinger]

I refuse to believe that you are really oblivious enough to actually think that the post you quoted means GOD has an actual policy of always demanding reps from war. Nevermind the fact that there are examples to show otherwise, drawing that conclusion from Xiphs statement in your post is just plain silly.

Assuming your not utterly lost in regards to past events and interpretation of statements in general, did you really expect you could just say GOD has a policy and people would assume it exists and dislike them for it? I mean unless you are really, really bad with things, that's the only motive I can think of behind your claim.

The statement that Xiph made is that if GOD is attacked, he wants reparations. That's what he used to justify (in some minds) the Aurora Borealis terms.

Otherwise, how in the hell can you justify them?

And - quite frankly, GOD's never granted a white peace. Not ever. CCC was reps-free, but (a) they were utterly destroyed and (b) they were declared on. Still they got a permanent surrender term which is still in effect.

[NoFish]

The statement that Xiph made is that if GOD is attacked, he wants reparations. That's what he used to justify (in some minds) the Aurora Borealis terms.

Otherwise, how in the hell can you justify them?

And - quite frankly, GOD's never granted a white peace. Not ever. CCC was reps-free, but (a) they were utterly destroyed and (b) they were declared on. Still they got a permanent surrender term which is still in effect.

Right, we certainly didn't offer white peace to GDA, now did we?

Edit: Incidentally, Haf, I think CCC might take some offense at the notion that they were "utterly destroyed" by four days of non-nuclear war which, according to the wiki, dropped their NS by 20%.

Edited January 12, 2010 by NoFish

[Xiphosis]

The statement that Xiph made is that if GOD is attacked, he wants reparations.

No, the statement is actually from a time when going nukes-free was less common, and I was saying if someone hit us there was absolutely nothing I wouldn't do to make their lives a hellish !@#$storm of pain and misery - including nuke.

And - quite frankly, GOD's never granted a white peace. Not ever.

And we've only taken reps in Karma. Go check. I'll wait.

CCC was reps-free, but (a) they were utterly destroyed and (b) they were declared on.

CCC was at war for 2 days and was never nuked. I want to know in what world this qualifies as "utterly destroyed." And you're damn right we hit them first - NoCB for my side was largely about eradicating ES's power base, and ES being by far the most persistent threat to GOD att, we unhesitatingly helped out.

We asked that CCC sever ties to their side - something standard as far back as GW2 - surrender, and remove a clause from their charter saying they could attack anyone, anywhere, at any time for attacking another Christian regardless of AA - a term a number of them liked a great deal, judging by the PMs I got.

Keep it coming Haf.

[Dochartaigh]

No, the statement is actually from a time when going nukes-free was less common, and I was saying if someone hit us there was absolutely nothing I wouldn't do to make their lives a hellish !@#$storm of pain and misery - including nuke.

And we've only taken reps in Karma. Go check. I'll wait.

CCC was at war for 2 days and was never nuked. I want to know in what world this qualifies as "utterly destroyed." And you're damn right we hit them first - NoCB for my side was largely about eradicating ES's power base, and ES being by far the most persistent threat to GOD att, we unhesitatingly helped out.

We asked that CCC sever ties to their side - something standard as far back as GW2 - surrender, and remove a clause from their charter saying they could attack anyone, anywhere, at any time for attacking another Christian regardless of AA - a term a number of them liked a great deal, judging by the PMs I got.

Keep it coming Haf.

i have to say, i did not like GOD during NoCB/SPW, but their history is fairly clean when it comes to terms.

[Il Impero Romano]

The statement that Xiph made is that if GOD is attacked, he wants reparations.

Well, gee, no...no, its just plain not what he said at all. If you don't believe me just look back at the post you quoted:

Our policy for war has been fairly consistent, and we never made any bones that if someone attacked us, it was going to hurt a lot.

I mean it's kinda plain as day, he said nothing even close to what you keep saying over and over.

well either that or he is a terrible poster

Touche, point taken lol

[Bob Janova]

The statement that Xiph made is that if GOD is attacked, he wants reparations

I'm sorry, but it really isn't. If that statement that you quoted is all you have to back up your opinion of GOD, then either you have horribly misinterpreted something for many months or (and I think this is more likely) you are deliberately attempting to twist GOD's words so you can paint them as the new evil. (Which isn't necessary, GOD are an old evil .)

[Mixoux]

back up your opinion of GOD

No, his opinion of us is largely based on a single event that happened almost two years ago, because he had a friend involved.

[Haflinger]

No, his opinion of us is largely based on a single event that happened almost two years ago, because he had a friend involved.

It's hardly based on a single event.

My first dealing with GOD was in the Illuminati War. That's where I first formed my dislike, although we were fighting on the same side.

Anyway, shall we recap GOD's war victories here (other than CCC, which has been gone into fairly well) for a moment.

Illuminati - Installed viceroy; later alliance disbanded. (Yeah, Invicta's guilty of this too, we signed the same terms.)

Alliance for Happy Evolution And Defence - Permanent terms; alliance later disbands due to losing its main leader per the terms.

Hell-Fighters - Disbands.

Nations Empowered Against Totalitarianism - Disbands, joining the OBR's Blackwater wing; reforms later.

Piranha Platoon - Disbands.

The Buccaneers - Disbands.

The Corps - Disbands.

The Guard - Disbands.

The Red Rose - Disbands.

The Triple Entente - Disbands.

GDA - Forced demilitarization with no protection.

AB - Forced demilitarization with no protection; also, paid technology reparations.

Echelon - Forced demilitarization with protection; unpaid technology reparations; permanent terms, plus the infamous "cute demeanour" term.

It's quite the record.

[Dochartaigh]

It's hardly based on a single event.

My first dealing with GOD was in the Illuminati War. That's where I first formed my dislike, although we were fighting on the same side.

Anyway, shall we recap GOD's war victories here (other than CCC, which has been gone into fairly well) for a moment.

Illuminati - Installed viceroy; later alliance disbanded. (Yeah, Invicta's guilty of this too, we signed the same terms.)

Alliance for Happy Evolution And Defence - Permanent terms; alliance later disbands due to losing its main leader per the terms.

Hell-Fighters - Disbands.

Nations Empowered Against Totalitarianism - Disbands, joining the OBR's Blackwater wing; reforms later.

Piranha Platoon - Disbands.

The Buccaneers - Disbands.

The Corps - Disbands.

The Guard - Disbands.

The Red Rose - Disbands.

The Triple Entente - Disbands.

GDA - Forced demilitarization with no protection.

AB - Forced demilitarization with no protection; also, paid technology reparations.

Echelon - Forced demilitarization with protection; unpaid technology reparations; permanent terms, plus the infamous "cute demeanour" term.

It's quite the record.

ya know, i have always hated that others get blamed for when an alliance disbands. if the alliance does not have the will to maintain itself it is no one's fault but the alliance who disbands. GATO had an installed viceroy and did not disband. Legion had an installed viceroy and did not disband. FAN fought the longest war in history and did not disband.

all the alliances you listed that disbanded did so because of themselves period. they did not do so because of terms or whatever excuse they wanted to give. they did so because they lacked the willpower to maintain an alliance.

[Jeeooh]

It's hardly based on a single event.

My first dealing with GOD was in the Illuminati War. That's where I first formed my dislike, although we were fighting on the same side.

Anyway, shall we recap GOD's war victories here (other than CCC, which has been gone into fairly well) for a moment.

Illuminati - Installed viceroy; later alliance disbanded. (Yeah, Invicta's guilty of this too, we signed the same terms.)

Alliance for Happy Evolution And Defence - Permanent terms; alliance later disbands due to losing its main leader per the terms.

Hell-Fighters - Disbands.

Nations Empowered Against Totalitarianism - Disbands, joining the OBR's Blackwater wing; reforms later.

Piranha Platoon - Disbands.

The Buccaneers - Disbands.

The Corps - Disbands.

The Guard - Disbands.

The Red Rose - Disbands.

The Triple Entente - Disbands.

GDA - Forced demilitarization with no protection.

AB - Forced demilitarization with no protection; also, paid technology reparations.

Echelon - Forced demilitarization with protection; unpaid technology reparations; permanent terms, plus the infamous "cute demeanour" term.

It's quite the record.

Hey GOD, wanna sign a treaty?

[Gobb]

It's quite the record.

Indeed it is