President Sitruk Posted February 8, 2010 Report Share Posted February 8, 2010 [quote name='Trinite' date='08 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1265651937' post='2168873'] Want to punish TORN for not abiding by your moral code? [/quote] they could stop fighting because that'd take all the fun out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarman2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 First off, to astronaut jones, you make a good point. Having never faced bill lock, I was looking at this from the position of someone with a decent warchest who was choosing to exit the war for whatever reason. That being said, Nexus has revised the PM portion and has stated we will look at each surrender on a case by case basis because we don't wish to drive people away or destroy nations. While people may still find this unfair, we are looking to make sure that anyone who surrenders to us to exit the war before their alliance will not be a threat to us again. And ZI only comes to those nations who backstab us and break these terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='sircrimson' date='09 February 2010 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1265655961' post='2168932'] no it wouldn't no terms would mean they would have no chance of getting out of the war, which would mean they would be continuously attacked until the war was over, which would be zi in it self [/quote] We arent the ones crying about being nuked. We arent the ones looking to get out of the war, much less to bad terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1265677465' post='2169427'] First off, to astronaut jones, you make a good point. Having never faced bill lock, I was looking at this from the position of someone with a decent warchest who was choosing to exit the war for whatever reason. That being said, Nexus has revised the PM portion and has stated we will look at each surrender on a case by case basis because we don't wish to drive people away or destroy nations. While people may still find this unfair, we are looking to make sure that anyone who surrenders to us to exit the war before their alliance will not be a threat to us again. And ZI only comes to those nations who backstab us and break these terms. [/quote] I have a decent warchest. Why would I want to surrender when I can do more damage to your nations than you can do to mine? It is your nations who have sub-standard WarChests and will be heading for bill lock soon. If you were offering white peace on the other hand, that might be something we have to think about. Still a little premature for that though, as weve only just entered into our 2nd set of wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarman2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Stevie, as I pointed out in the first two sentences, I was making my earlier points about PM from the basis that it would not hurt a nation with a good warchest worse than the war would. This person would not be exiting the war because of bill lock and the inability to fight, but rather to preserve their nation form further destruction. Personally, I don't surrender and I'm prepared for a long enough war, so individual terms don't mean much to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 I think this entire situation would have turned out better if you left out the peace mode term and just let nations surrender. Then again, I could be wrong and all these statements are praise for your lovely terms. I have two more questions. Does Nexus recognize surrenders to other alliances, even though they do not force the POW's in to Peace Mode? Are you sure that doesn't break your morals as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Panda Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 If you surrender to another alliance, but keep fighting us, then no, We do not recognize your surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 I think by surrendering to another alliance it is implied they stop fighting everyone. Not sure how they'd be able to keep fighting if the demobed most of their military stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdasda10 Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 God, this is great. I love all of your BAWWWING Nexus. Please, please, next time one of my war slots upen declare on me. I'll be waiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1265678634' post='2169459'] Stevie, as I pointed out in the first two sentences, I was making my earlier points about PM from the basis that it would not hurt a nation with a good warchest worse than the war would. [/quote] Fair enough, although it would significantly hurt the ones without a warchest. Those are the ones likely to be fleeing into peace mode of their own accord after a round or so of battles. Oh the irony [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1265678634' post='2169459'] Personally, I don't surrender and I'm prepared for a long enough war, so individual terms don't mean much to me. [/quote] The feeling is mutual. Somehow, though, I think we are prepared for a longer war than the majority of Nexus. Spy ops tend to lead me to that conclusion. Then again, if you and the other alliances at war with us can successfully rotate nations onto us then maybe you can eventually out us. Nexus versus TORN = TORN victory, even though you have more NS than us. Don't beleive me? take us up on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galapagos Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 (edited) I certainly do love seeing a group of little import swinging far above their weight class behind the skirts of their allies. I'd love to see you enforce these terms on your own. Edited February 9, 2010 by Galapagos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King duffman Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1265678634' post='2169459'] Stevie, as I pointed out in the first two sentences, I was making my earlier points about PM from the basis that it would not hurt a nation with a good warchest worse than the war would. This person would not be exiting the war because of bill lock and the inability to fight, but rather to preserve their nation form further destruction. Personally, I don't surrender and I'm prepared for a long enough war, so individual terms don't mean much to me. [/quote] Obviously you have never noticed TORN in war or have an understanding of your current enemies before you jumped the gun on us because we dont surrender after a few days/week of war... WE ARE A WAR MACHINE so offering these terms has just hardened our resolve to not give in to your TERMS... Im Sorry if you thought our infra meant anything to us cause it doesnt when it comes to WAR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarman2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 For guys intent on not surrendering, you sure do complain a bunch about the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 CoMA 2.0 ITT. srsly guys, you can do better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1265720949' post='2170458'] For guys intent on not surrendering, you sure do complain a bunch about the terms. [/quote] Well when people notice a failure they will act on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 08:09 AM' timestamp='1265720949' post='2170458'] For guys intent on not surrendering, you sure do complain a bunch about the terms. [/quote] The bulk of the people complaining about the terms are not even from TORN. I was one of the people in here calling Nexus out for their naive and ridiculous terms. (It's like, "Look! Our First War Ever! We're Cool Now!") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 01:04 AM' timestamp='1265677465' post='2169427'] First off, to astronaut jones, you make a good point. Having never faced bill lock, I was looking at this from the position of someone with a decent warchest who was choosing to exit the war for whatever reason. That being said, Nexus has revised the PM portion and has stated we will look at each surrender on a case by case basis because we don't wish to drive people away or destroy nations. While people may still find this unfair, we are looking to make sure that anyone who surrenders to us to exit the war before their alliance will not be a threat to us again. And ZI only comes to those nations who backstab us and break these terms. [/quote] While I think it's great that you have reconsidered, I must point out that the peace terms in this thread have not been changed or edited to reflect the change in terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 07:09 AM' timestamp='1265720949' post='2170458'] For guys intent on not surrendering, you sure do complain a bunch about the terms. [/quote] No I like your terms, it gave us someone to focus our nukes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Sitruk Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 great way to keep people in the fight, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted February 9, 2010 Report Share Posted February 9, 2010 Looks like its time for Nexus to go revisit their nuke policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarman2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 [quote name='astronaut jones' date='09 February 2010 - 08:27 AM' timestamp='1265725625' post='2170521'] While I think it's great that you have reconsidered, I must point out that the peace terms in this thread have not been changed or edited to reflect the change in terms. [/quote] Yeah, I'll let Jerry know he should revise the original post to reflect the change. The peace mode requirement for the duration of the war was an oversight on our part, but I'd like to point out we're not the only ones requiring PM. The RIA terms also require nations to go to peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1265761896' post='2171510'] Yeah, I'll let Jerry know he should revise the original post to reflect the change. The peace mode requirement for the duration of the war was an oversight on our part, but I'd like to point out we're not the only ones requiring PM. The RIA terms also require nations to go to peace mode. [/quote] RIA terms didn't state they were required to stay in peace mode for the entire duration of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarman2010 Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='09 February 2010 - 06:34 PM' timestamp='1265762071' post='2171516'] RIA terms didn't state they were required to stay in peace mode for the entire duration of the war. [/quote] No, they didn't, and as we've stated before, we made a mistake and did not consider that this war could last for many more weeks. Hence, the revision. Not sure what more you want than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 [quote name='tarman2010' date='09 February 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1265762232' post='2171520'] No, they didn't, and as we've stated before, we made a mistake and did not consider that this war could last for many more weeks. Hence, the revision. Not sure what more you want than that. [/quote] They're not revised. It clearly states it in the individual terms. [quote name='jerry wagner' date='07 February 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1265595814' post='2167834'] [list][u][b][1] Enter Peace mode for the duration of the war.[/b][/u] [2] Do not accept or send foreign aid. [3] Change your AA to "Nexus PoW". [4] Decommission your forces to the minimum required to keep yourself out of anarchy, including nuclear weapons. [5] Decommission any military improvements, barracks, g.camps, etc. [i]except those necessary to maintain wonders. (edited for clarification)[/i] [6] Do not re-enter the conflict. [7] Post your notice of surrender on the Nexus forums by following the links for [url="http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Nexus_Agreement/index.php?showtopic=188"]TORN individual Surrenders[/url] or [url="http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Nexus_Agreement/index.php?showtopic=189"]WFF Individual Surrenders[/url][/list] Violation of these terms will result be subject to ZI. [/quote] The bold and underline is to make it easier for you read the terms jerry posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Sitruk Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 (edited) he said he'd let what's-his-name know. it wasnt his post so, yeah. i'm thinking the nations that dont plan on sticking it out have already surrendered but hey, at least you revised it. Edited February 10, 2010 by President Sitruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.