VE discussion

[hawk11]

I await the DoW from GGA and your breaking of surrender terms to support them anxiously.

Now now, if anything the recent Athens war declared the precedent that there's no statute of limitations on reasons for war (everyone stop using the term CB and start saying "reason for war." It's a lot easier). When I gain control of the NPO in six years, I might just take them up on the challenge here.

[King Srqt]

Now now, if anything the recent Athens war declared the precedent that there's no statute of limitations on reasons for war (everyone stop using the term CB and start saying "reason for war." It's a lot easier). When I gain control of the NPO in six years, I might just take them up on the challenge here.

Good point but then you will have to worry about VE's allies a week later causing there to be white peace all around!

Edited January 11, 2010 by KingSrqt

[Arcades057]

OK, read the Viridian posts again, Bob.

From Il Impero Romano:

Oh, and look at us now...jokes on you bud

Not really, and never was before. Quite ironic you would try to say anything about that time period givin the current status and size of your former alliance (no disrespect to our fellow UJA signtory intended) compared with that of Viridia, who is bigger and better then we have ever been.

If you think for a minute that the stunt you pulled back then accomplished anything then you are sorely mistaken. If you think our success and growth a just a short few months later after "disbanding" was a coincidence you are sorely mistaken. The only thing that your little escapade did in the long run was show your true colors, put a short intermission on our growth, and harden our core community. I don't like the term "disband", I prefer to think of it as refusing to play your little game and leave colors, and just playing you in the long run instead

From Sooner:

Actually, you're wrong again, Slick Willie.

We did choose to fight for our beliefs. We took them to other alliances and spread our message and ideals. We chose that avenue because it would have made it impossible for you to hurt any of us, either IC or OOC.

From Farnsworth:

Three accusations from Bilrow:

1. Disband

2. Willingness to fight

3. Do-nothing alliance

1. Yes, we clearly disbanded, though it was very brief. Many in Viridia did not want to disband at the time and still today wish we had not, but we will not deny it happened.

2. Questioning our willingness to fight is a bit tricky. You can base your opinion strictly of the disbandment - which seems to be your method of choice - or you can look at a broader, more holistic view of our history and judge whether or not revenge has taken place.

3. Do-nothing, eh? This scarcely requires rebuttal, but I suppose I could indulge you by reminding you of the time we defended our allies in Ordo Verde.

From aineshane:

You sir, give yourself too much credit.

Looking at a long term strategy with short term eyesight will normally result in views such as yours Slick willy

From Sooner:

So says the person who placed a gun to our collective heads on that day. You may have won the battle but not the war. The victors write the history, which you are clearly not.

From Zulchep:

Okay, so let me get this straight... Bilrow, you're butthurt, basically, that you tried to engineer VE's demise so you could own the senate, then got pissed when your murder plot ultimately failed. Did VE disband? Yes. And they came back. You basically left them to die in the woods, and they came back to hunt you down when they got better.

Then they leapfrogged over GGA, turned the tables, and now you're no longer top dog. Boo hoo. Get over it.

From Smooth:

1) Anyone who believes that the Entente, by disbanding, didn't win the "war" against, well, Bilrow, is completely ignorant of all that has happened since we disbanded. Our government and alliance pretty much agree that we won unquestionably. Just look at us now?

From Smooth:

I apologize for misconveying my views. I intended that, by putting war in quotations, people would realize I wasn't referring to the physical manifestation of this conflict that happened during the Green Civil War. We lost the Green Civil War. None of us deny that. Rather, we consider the entirety of the conflict to be a success. Get me?

From Solaris:

We have walked the path of the guerrilla ninja, and we have prevailed

From Grossman:

Ohhhh Bilrow. Yes he helped blow up Viridia for his own ends. No it didn't last, and now he's paying reps to VE whatever that means. I think that normally the argument about disbandment interrupting the lifespan of an alliance is valid, but not in Viridia's case. We came back so long ago and are so well established in reference to how short that disbandment was. Everyone, almost everyone, agrees the disbandment was in reaction to dastardly forces that have now suffered due to karma, if they are around and still in their same form. The disbandment is a miniscule fraction of the time of Planet Bob. When P rises from the ashes and we get the second smack down can we insist on disbandment? Then we can watch the word smith that is bilrow twist it in some more fantastic way when they come back. I actually think P would go FAN style before disbanding at this point to be honest

That's from pages 1-3. If you want I can go through the other 3 pages for you, since obviously you yourself did not read the posts of your fellow Viridian members,

[Cortath]

Don't worry about it, Arcades057. We didn't "surrender" in the Armageddon (Karma) war, we just engaged in a "strategic maneuver."

I suppose that might mean we "lost" all the "wars" we "won" though? All this political spin has gotten me a bit dizzy and I'm not sure what to think anymore. Am I "in" an "alliance" even? "Who" "are" "you"?

[Bob Janova]

You are reading them in a literalist way that I know you're above. We're OOC here, you don't need to play politics. There's metaphorical mentions of war and 'beating' GGA in the long run – like Vladimir used to claim that NPO 'lost the battle, but not the war' over GW1-2-3, but you weren't literally in a constant state of war for that whole time.

Actually that's a pretty good analogy, even though the Orders didn't have to disband in GW1. You take your licks, lose a war, adapt your approach and come back to a stronger position than you were in before.

Edit for Cortath: You don't have to play politics either. Smooth even said in one of those quotes that Arcades used that VE lost the Viridicide. Nobody is disputing that. You lost in Karma, just as you won GW2 and 3, and that won't change even if you come back bigger and stronger later on.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Bob Janova

[King Srqt]

Don't worry about it, Arcades057. We didn't "surrender" in the Armageddon (Karma) war, we just engaged in a "strategic maneuver."

I suppose that might mean we "lost" all the "wars" we "won" though? All this political spin has gotten me a bit dizzy and I'm not sure what to think anymore. Am I "in" an "alliance" even? "Who" "are" "you"?

If only Smooth hadn't already said that VE lost the Green civil War and that when they say they won they are talking about the overall results, kind of like you like to do with GW1 but with more merit (since they aren't actually claiming to have won the GCW), then you would have a point. Must suck to come so close to being clever and yet failing anyway.

I also notice how you skipped over getting called out on your lie that you didn't continue wars after an alliance disbanded, maybe you should just call it a night.

[John Michaels]

As much as it makes the bile rise in my throat, and even though Bilrow's arguments are nothing more than a string of !@#$ty ad hominem attacks, there's really no basis for an argument here. I'd say that the Viridian Entente 2.0 is the same alliance as the first one culturally, but really they're seperate political entities and it should be noted as such. This is approaching Vladimir levels of historical revisionism, guys, and it's kind of embarrassing. No one has made any exceptions for the fifteen variations of the ICP, for example, and I see no reason to make the distinction here.

[Cortath]

You are reading them in a literalist way that I know you're above. We're OOC here, you don't need to play politics. There's metaphorical mentions of war and 'beating' GGA in the long run – like Vladimir used to claim that NPO 'lost the battle, but not the war' over GW1-2-3, but you weren't literally in a constant state of war for that whole time.

Actually that's a pretty good analogy, even though the Orders didn't have to disband in GW1. You take your licks, lose a war, adapt your approach and come back to a stronger position than you were in before.

Exactly, Bon Janova. We're OOC here, and having silly arguments about stupid definitions seems a bit below us, doesn't it? It doesn't strike you as more than a bit sophomoric that some alliances are all up in arms about their place on a list? And then trying to spin the English language wildly so that they can move their spot higher on the list? VE lost the war. They disbanded. They came back. Good for them. The list is a stupid construct, with arbirtary rules, and twisting the norms of English language and our common understanding of politics to get higher on a list is way below the standards I usually set when I judge a large, politically sophisticated sanctioned alliance. Calling VE's "loss" a "strategic maneuver" as if VE planned, prior to the war, to lose, disband and reform is no more believable than it is that it was Pacifica's "plan" to lose the Karma war.

[Vladimir]

like Vladimir used to claim that NPO 'lost the battle, but not the war'

Vladimir never claimed that. People just like to say that he did because it's less effort than reading what he actually said. The concept you outline has always been a silly one.

[Arcades057]

Sorry, so now the actual words of VE members should be interpreted, not merely taken at face value?

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, Bob...

[Bob Janova]

I basically agree with you I think, Cortath. It's not my list and I don't really care about where my alliance appears on it. But since this thread was split out and is entirely about VE, and some people are trying to claim that there was no continuity of community, I feel like pointing out that that doesn't appear to be the case.

Edit:

Sorry, so now the actual words of people should be interpreted, not merely taken at face value?

Fixed that for you. People have this language feature called 'metaphor', you might have heard of it. Basically everything you quoted about 'war' is clearly metaphorical.

Vladimir never claimed that

Well I'm sure some of your alliance mates took it up then. Either way, it's as silly whether you said it or not, and that's why I'm finding it hard to believe that Arcades actually thinks people are saying that.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Bob Janova

[hawk11]

Well I'm sure some of your alliance mates took it up then.

Tell them I said they're fools. Like seriously, quote them and say "hawk_11 says you're a fool" and link them to this post.

[Sir Paul]

Since we're OOC, I'll use an IRL example:

The City of Bakersfield was first incorporated in 1873. Three years later, the town decided to disincorporate (they wanted to fire the fire marshal, but he was a very good shot, so it was easier to unincorporate the City than to fire him). The buildings and community did not go away, but Bakersfield was not a City. It was not until 1898 that the community incorporated again. The City's Centenial was 1998, not 1973.

ediT: Typo

Edited January 11, 2010 by Sir Paul

[ModusOperandi]

Well they did disband after one day of war instead of fighting for their cause.

I agree with Bilrow.

I was a "neutral-independent" (whatever the hell that means) back then and even I remember the lack of VE balls. FAN fought on, why didn't the 'Entente???

EDIT:

After reading this thread further, I discovered that question had already been answered by Chief Savage Man, et al.

I concede that different circumstances and variables do not make them identical situations.

I'd like to press, however, a statement someone else said in this thread; the fact that your interpretation of the circumstances of VE disbandment does not inhibit or preclude the fact that VE disbanded.

The NAAC has accepted their course of action and earned much admiration and respect for the legacy of that alliance, why hasn't your's?

In this humble individual's opinion (not truth, just opinion) VE was an alliance with great graphics, talked about honor a lot, that was opportunistic when it came to Initiative membership, just as "bad" as the "oppressive" alliances of the growing hegemony than it liked to admit, and a community that quit when the going got tough and pulled a "screw you guys I'm going home."

Than a few of you said "Oh but we didn't mean it," and created a big list of excuses for your decision.

Now, you're pretending that it didn't happen?

VE gave up.

If you want to be in an alliance of quitters and talk about honor than go nutz.

But don't pretend that it didn't happen.

Edited January 11, 2010 by ModusOperandi

[Tygaland]

You disbanded the alliance. That means it was over and done. Then you reformed. That means that you restarted something that wasnt there. You can not claim the original start date anymore. I dont see why this is hard to grasp.

I agree with my fellow tiger on this one. Once you disband your continuity is gone whether it is 2 months or 2 years between disbandment and reformation. The reformation dates should be used for alliance that reform after disbanding. You cannot just pretend the disbandment never happened.

[Sunstar]

I'm not a fan of making this into a hostile argument since it really shouldn't be a big deal, but I feel the need to reiterate something I said earlier:

It was that or be ZI'd and forced to drop the flag; I don't think it really says anything against the spirit of VE that it didn't force its membership to go to ZI fighting its supposed friends.

Every alliance has a choice. Just because \m/, VE, and others chose to disband, doesn't mean that sticking it out wasn't an option. Just look at FAN.

Its not an easy choice, but it is only yours to make. No foreign entity can make it for you.

[Cortath]

I basically agree with you I think, Cortath. It's not my list and I don't really care about where my alliance appears on it. But since this thread was split out and is entirely about VE, and some people are trying to claim that there was no continuity of community, I feel like pointing out that that doesn't appear to be the case.

A noble effort, but ultimately, a useless exercise, I'm afraid to say. If I spent all the time pointing out claims people made about my alliance that I thought were false, I would neither eat nor sleep, and I certainly would not be Emperor. I would sit here 24/7 to the detriment of my own alliance, as I would be unable to contribute to it.

When my head hits the pillow, I know that the cultural history of my alliance is secure in the hearts of those people that matter: Pacificans. I hope you can do the same with the alliance you hold dear.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Cortath

[Caesar833]

Actually, I would say community is what defines an alliance

It is a large part of an alliance. But like someone already pointed out; if a community is an alliance then NPO and many many others are older alliances then the game itself. Which really doesnt work out if ya think about it.

[Branimir]

Well I'm sure some of your alliance mates took it up then.

You know what is really hilarious.

That coin how "NPO lost that battle but won the war" didn't came from NPO members. I am also OOC here, no IC twisting or anything am not trying to BS anybody, I clearly remember that phrase first coming and actually turning into sort of a mantra from the disappointed players after in game event called "GW 3." The same with mantra how NPO won the game,....didnt came from us but from all those goodbye threads in which you had "Why NPO won the game",....from players that were never NPO.

Honestly, crap that Vladimir is getting for his attitudes towards GW 1, and NPO community in general, is really ridiculous and a total twist and wrong simplification of what Vlad actually said about that war, which is his opinion mind you and not a declaration in the name of NPO.

I am now somewhat, long standing member of NPO and its community (at times more or less active) and I never claimed GW 1 as a victory for NPO, nor do I take it as such. We surrendered and it felt like a surrender to me tbh, thus defeat. We quickly washed away that bad taste with a quick bounce back, which many roots were in our defeat which was a defeat (and I repeat), but left enough room for us to turn the tables latter on.

VE I am sorry, but simple fact is-- you cant claim continuity. You are a re form. You do not need to be so defensive about that, nothing wrong with being a re form.

Also,....why,...just why this pip,....God,...

edit: Among NPO members, they either never admitted any defeat (of a battle, fist fight, or whatever), or silently admitted (like me ).

One popular catch phrase was, how we lost the war but won the peace time,...that was popular for a while.

Edited January 11, 2010 by Branimir

[Arcturus Jefferson]

Also,....why,...just why this pip,....God,...

I'm pretty sure that forum tag means you lost everything.

[Ejayrazz]

I agree with Bilrow.

I was a "neutral-independent" (whatever the hell that means) back then and even I remember the lack of VE balls. FAN fought on, why didn't the 'Entente???

Though I respect your opinion, everyone fights their battles differently. Either way, VE is here, their community has strengthened, and their memories are not forgotten. Whether you agree with their method, they have done well to be where they stand now. Not everyone wishes to keep battling like FAN did, if I recall correctly TPF got scolded for trying to do what FAN did: Continue fighting for what they believe in. Of course, this could be spun either way.

Not everyone will choose FAN's tactic in fighting, we mine as well call LUE and NAAC a bunch of cowards as well..I mean...each faced destruction and disbanded, right? (This is more so of a NO U argument, don't think it's actually valid for you posting-happy goers)

Each situation has its own mitigating circumstances. Each situation can draw up its own assumptions and theories, which will not lead us anywhere. I am sorry you're unable to even consider it something other than cowardice, but I don't expect everyone to have the ability to see things from a more complexed, analytical viewpoint. Hell, if I wasn't aware of everything that happened, maybe I'd be in your shoes, but I would hope someone would correct me and post this exact same thing as I just have. You call it cowardice, I call it different tactics. We can argue forever, but either way VE is here and their method worked.

[Lonely]

It was a white peace, and neither side even came close to accomplishing their goals. That makes it so close that it is debatable, but since you seem to be asking for my personal opinion, I'd call it a draw.

But it wasn't a white peace. Tygaland was required to step down as Emperor of NpO, and Sponge and Ivan both had to make apologies. If ODN and Legion had so desired, they could have destroyed us then and there.

Well, if we want to argue petty definitions, my community was founded in August of 2003 and never disbanded. Do we win "oldest alliance"?

You have a point. The NS NPO and the PRP are nothing like the alliance that currently calls itself the New Pacific Order. There's a different ethos and a different culture. And different people.

[Branimir]

We can argue forever, but either way VE is here and their method worked.

Actually, main argument is (how much I managed to fallow it, being tired and all) how there was no premeditated "VE method" here.

They just disbanded under overwhelming odds. Later on, members that lingered on, jumped at a chance of a re form.

[Goldie]

I agree with my esteemed adversaries that while the culture and name carried over, continuity in regards to the oldest alliances thread should read the Reformation Day. While I do believe the reformation of VE to be unlike any of the other alliances mentioned in comparison, such as \m/ or IAA for example, simply because of the splinter alliances created with the sole intention of reforming asap (while those other alliances did not have the level of continuity, and did not have alliances in between simply to serve as a means to an end for reformation), I believe that the spirit of the list is for alliances who have remained continuously in operation for the longest period of time, which VE can not claim.

[ModusOperandi]

Though I respect your opinion, everyone fights their battles differently. Either way, VE is here, their community has strengthened, and their memories are not forgotten. Whether you agree with their method, they have done well to be where they stand now. Not everyone wishes to keep battling like FAN did, if I recall correctly TPF got scolded for trying to do what FAN did: Continue fighting for what they believe in. Of course, this could be spun either way.

Not everyone will choose FAN's tactic in fighting, we mine as well call LUE and NAAC a bunch of cowards as well..I mean...each faced destruction and disbanded, right? (This is more so of a NO U argument, don't think it's actually valid for you posting-happy goers)

Each situation has its own mitigating circumstances. Each situation can draw up its own assumptions and theories, which will not lead us anywhere. I am sorry you're unable to even consider it something other than cowardice, but I don't expect everyone to have the ability to see things from a more complexed, analytical viewpoint. Hell, if I wasn't aware of everything that happened, maybe I'd be in your shoes, but I would hope someone would correct me and post this exact same thing as I just have. You call it cowardice, I call it different tactics. We can argue forever, but either way VE is here and their method worked.

Excellent post Ejay, I appreciate your insight.