End of Hostilities

[lonewolfe2015]

The question is, is the war as inevitable as it seems, and if so, which side gains from this?

You can't place a gain on either side, we both lost in the end.

The difference will come in how and when the next viable CB is determined for where the borderline alliances rallied and fell in place.

I for one hope this war does show to people how little there is a central command anymore and perhaps my Billiards Table reference in one of Kzopp's threads becomes more apparent. now.

Also, if we're trying to define the new times, you're going to have a tough time, because it's like a game of billiards out there with spheres of influence making power grabs everywhere and sending some others into the pockets until they can dominate the table and be the last or the greatest remaining conquest.

[D34th]

You did call the STA cowards actually. But you are entitled to your opinion no matter how inaccurate it is. This war and the IRON treaty that NSO signed were not even mentioned when the discussion about the future of Frostbite took place. It was generally agreed that Frostbite was going to be dissolved once this conflict was over and done with. However, the rumour mill got back to me about what was happening so I decided to withdraw the STA from Frostbite rather than have someone from the peanut gallery "leak" it publicly.

If the IRON treaty (which I had no idea was to be announced until I saw it announced publicly) or the war was the reason for STA leaving Frostbite then the original plan to wait until the war was over doesn't really fit. Add to that the STA is still allied to Polaris, Mushroom Kingdom, Neuva Vida and Vanguard who were all allied to combatants in the war even after the cancelleation of our NSO treaty and withdrawal from Frostbite, then such a move hardly sees us fleeing the war. We were still very likely to be drawn in at some stage had it continued along the path it appeared to be following.

The only reason the STA withdrew from Frostbite and cancelled our treaty with the NSO was because politically we were too different and it was not working. No fault of NSO's or ours, we just never shared a common goal or direction and after 6 months of trying to work through the differences it was agreed to part ways. The timing wasn't ideal for anyone but I didn't see any point in dragging it on any longer and certainly did not want someone from outside the bloc to drop the story into the public domain.

So, when you are going to make up stories and make slurs against my alliance do me a favour and at least make your story remotely believable.

I disagree with you in one point, I think the time was nearly perfect. Imagine FB dissolved in the middle of a boredom state, with absolutely nothing happening, it would generated +50 pages of dumb speculation about the reasons.

Edited January 4, 2010 by D34th

[Locke]

Ronin will glady roll some furries.

I could kill me some furries right about now.

Well, it might be hard to find them, but I'm sure I could scrounge up a couple for you. :>

ME, I DO! YES! ME! PICK ME! Please?

Seriously, I would love to fight your alliance.

4 'oclock behind the schoolyard?

I vote we go after the animeists.

...

ANIMEISTS!

Says the Karamell Dansen av wearer.

[SpacingOutMan]

Yes; the obvious conclusion is that one side actually had a better hand, and was cowardly for not fighting. After all, one side said TPF was evil and the other said attacking TPF over such a bad CB was evil.

So fighting was logical, unless the outcome of fighting was ensuring the evil you saw would be perpetuated.

Except neither side had the better hand... it was pretty much dead even, with Supercomplaints having a slight advantage (literally by a few) in the upper register nations.

So funny seeing this the day after almost 80K NS in Alliances declares on you.

What are you going on about? 1) No one declared on CSN, 2) I'm 80,000 NS, so I would sure hope they would try to bum rush my nation with people who are larger, or around my size, to anarchy me (could be lower with prepared quads), 3) CSN was going to be countering last night, 4) Just because you use doesn't mean you're cool, and 5) I still think you're a perfect example of why IRON needs to rethink about letting its people post openly on the forums.

EDIT: Bold means more emphasis and easier legibility!

Edited January 4, 2010 by SpacingOutMan

[Fantastico]

You can't place a gain on either side, we both lost in the end.

Looking at this today, and echoing one of avernite's underlying points, a few things lead me to disagree. Only the outcome of the next war will show who was victorious today, assuming one is fought. I think many believe it will be, and soon.

The difference will come in how and when the next viable CB is determined for where the borderline alliances rallied and fell in place.

I think it is quite likely that the next CB relating to these parties will have a link to this announcement in it.

I for one hope this war does show to people how little there is a central command anymore and perhaps my Billiards Table reference in one of Kzopp's threads becomes more apparent. now.

I can see where you can say this for the Athens/GOD/\m//Ragnarok side.

What leads you to believe this for the "Coincidence" side?

Edited January 4, 2010 by Fantastico

[Haflinger]

How about you attempt to limit the amount of treaties your alliance has so the next war isn't aborted the way this one was?

Uh, Learz is in Invicta; you're in CSN. CSN has more treaty partners than we do, and specifically way more MDP+ partners.

Your remark is even more funny to me, because I know Learz's past alliances. He means what he says.

So, when you are going to make up stories and make slurs against my alliance do me a favour and at least make your story remotely believable.

Oh come on Tyga, if it was remotely believable it wouldn't belong here. You know that.

[Keres]

So, when you are going to make up stories and make slurs against my alliance do me a favour and at least make your story remotely believable.

Isnt that what they do? its not even the first time this war they do it... meh its just a pattern I see them coming back too over and over

Edited January 4, 2010 by Deathistan

[Penkala]

You are greatly mistaken, my friend. I know the heart and soul of Zenith and there isn't a coward among us. They all left in the Karma war. And if we were in range, I'd declare on you, right now.

So, I apologize for saying you were wrong about your earlier point. That wasn't what I heard from TPF recently but apparently you have a good grasp for history.

Now if you call me or my alliance cowards again. You're not going to like what happens. Now let's both step away from such talk.

Hi. You appear to be in Coward Mode. Coward.

Plz attack.

[Kzoppistan]

Hi. You appear to be in Coward Mode. Coward.

Plz attack.

Someone else already tried that. You're late to the party.

I can't get out of pm until tomorrow anyways. You might find it interesting that Duncan King told me to take it easy on you. I think she thinks you're cool.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Says the Karamell Dansen av wearer.

Yes, says I. I would very much like to fight.

[Locke]

Yes, says I. I would very much like to fight.

Dammit, why do you have to be 5 times my size? >.>

[SpiderJerusalem]

The post above yours expands the point. I am saying one side had a better chance to win. I am not saying which side, as it would end up creating another tangential discussion.

I do however believe that the side which had the better chance of victory was cowardly by accepting white peace, while the other side was quite justified in doing so as it created the best possible solution given that said side would have lost the war.

I was just genuinely curious on your opinion, that's all

[lanceman1972]

Can we just have a do over? Maybe in 72 hours? Otherwise, I'm going to have to support calling this the Worst War Ever. Seriously people, lets shed some blood here.

[Magnum T. Gundraw]

I picked the best time to become disinterested in CN. This is quite possibly the lulziest thing I have ever seen ever and will go back to my disinterest post-haste.

[Lord Brendan]

I do however believe that the side which had the better chance of victory was cowardly by accepting white peace, while the other side was quite justified in doing so as it created the best possible solution given that said side would have lost the war.

Opinions on who had the better chance of victory aside - you think that not pushing for war when you have the upper hand is proof of cowardice? Surely choosing the path of peace when victory by force is an option is representative of benevolence or leniency?

If you have the ability to kill someone and you don't, how is that cowardice?

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Dammit, why do you have to be 5 times my size? >.>

I take pride in being big.

[MCRABT]

I take pride in being big.

If you've got it flaunt it

o/ peace in our time

[Trinite]

5 days away and I miss the whole war.

[Locke]

5 days away and I miss the whole war.

Be thankful.

[wickedj]

5 days away and I miss the whole war.

For once, be glad you missed this cluster$%&@.

i sure hope whoever does the wikia is calling it the WWE

[Locke]

For once, be glad you missed this cluster$%&@.

i sure hope whoever does the wikia is calling it the WWE

Not officially, but that does redirect to it: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Worst_War_Ever

[Letum]

Opinions on who had the better chance of victory aside - you think that not pushing for war when you have the upper hand is proof of cowardice? Surely choosing the path of peace when victory by force is an option is representative of benevolence or leniency?

If you have the ability to kill someone and you don't, how is that cowardice?

If you are fighting in the name of a cause you believe in, then not following through is either a sign of cowardice, or a sign that you don't believe hard enough.

Benevolence and Leniency would have been involved prior to making a commitment to fight. Drawing your sword only to change your mind once you make contact with the enemy is no leniency.

[Fantastico]

If you are fighting in the name of a cause you believe in, then not following through is either a sign of cowardice, or a sign that you don't believe hard enough.

Benevolence and Leniency would have been involved prior to making a commitment to fight. Drawing your sword only to change your mind once you make contact with the enemy is no leniency.

Not all who chose to fight close their eyes and ears and shut down all faculties for compassion once a fight has commenced.

Just as not all believe every single quarrel must be a fight to the death.

[Anu Drake]

Opinions on who had the better chance of victory aside - you think that not pushing for war when you have the upper hand is proof of cowardice? Surely choosing the path of peace when victory by force is an option is representative of benevolence or leniency?

If you have the ability to kill someone and you don't, how is that cowardice?

I don't know you and I know CSN doesn't like a lot of our friends, but this is the best message I've read here all week. Very well said.

[Geoffron X]

Not all who chose to fight close their eyes and ears and shut down all faculties for compassion once a fight has commenced.

Just as not all believe every single quarrel must be a fight to the death.

They sure are compassionate. That's why SC negotiated with TPF before the war, and why they gave TPF white peace out of the kindness of their hearts without having to be strong armed into it.

OWAIT