The emergence of "Do not surrender syndrome"

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='jerdge' date='12 February 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1266018373' post='2178323']
I assure you that until you surrender we won't forget about you, no matter how many of you hit ZI.
[/quote]
When i joined, my alliance was Iron.We were actively monitoring all FAN and VOX nations.Probably NPO was doing the same and others,maybe even you.FAN And VOX did not disappear. Their model is always available.

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='jerdge' date='12 February 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1266018373' post='2178323']
I assure you that until you surrender we won't forget about you, no matter how many of you hit ZI.
[/quote]

No offense, but the thought of that doesn't scare me as much as you may have wanted.

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1266067704' post='2179171']
What do you mean I'm not right "in this very moment"?
[/quote]

well, you said it yourself in the post i quoted. however we are all quick to compare others to our sense of judgment and we forget to compare ourselves. i mean, can people really live in a world where they must face the reality that they are wrong in whatever they say?? and here it links to perspectives, generalizations, nominalizations (when we freeze dynamic processes into static words), rationalizations (using logic to explain to ourselves our illogical emotions). so i ask you again. this time pretty personally: can you live into a world where you are not right all the time?? (i have to point out that all you have been doing up until now is try to make everyone believe you are right and some of them are wrong just because from your perspective you and only you are right).


[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1266067704' post='2179171']
Interacting with people doesn't mean you have power over someone. And neither does pursuing something that others want, necessarily. Everyone (at least generally) wants to keep their alliance from being rolled. That doesn't mean that there's a zero sum game where if Fark is trying to not get rolled it means GOD automatically is rolled. Defending yourself isn't a pursuit of power because (rejecting pre-emptive strikes) you don't need to take offensive action to do so.
[/quote]
oh but it does. if someone assumes the slave position in a relationship of any kind with someone else, they will be treated like a slave, and acting like a king will make people treat you like a king (i mean like a king people, not a arrogant insecure chump). it happens on a individual level, when people of higher perceived status are treated differently by those around (wear a business suit in a crowded place and observe how others look at you, then wear a really dinky looking outfit and see the differences). it happens at a group level (look at how, within a block of alliances some of them are talked about as being in charge while others are just there for the ride). these are all subtle ways of expressing power by those who have/lack it. as i said, true independence is dropped as soon as you interact with someone and form any kind of relationship. if you form a friendship you give up the power to take something of his through force most of the time. if you make him a enemy you give up the power of taking something amicably (these are just examples, not the whole things you give up/get from the relationship)

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='13 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1266097483' post='2179751']
well, you said it yourself in the post i quoted. however we are all quick to compare others to our sense of judgment and we forget to compare ourselves. i mean, can people really live in a world where they must face the reality that they are wrong in whatever they say?? and here it links to perspectives, generalizations, nominalizations (when we freeze dynamic processes into static words), rationalizations (using logic to explain to ourselves our illogical emotions). so i ask you again. this time pretty personally: can you live into a world where you are not right all the time?? (i have to point out that all you have been doing up until now is try to make everyone believe you are right and some of them are wrong just because from your perspective you and only you are right).[/quote]
Of course I can be wrong. I think you're projecting.

[quote]oh but it does. if someone assumes the slave position in a relationship of any kind with someone else, they will be treated like a slave, and acting like a king will make people treat you like a king (i mean like a king people, not a arrogant insecure chump). it happens on a individual level, when people of higher perceived status are treated differently by those around (wear a business suit in a crowded place and observe how others look at you, then wear a really dinky looking outfit and see the differences). it happens at a group level (look at how, within a block of alliances some of them are talked about as being in charge while others are just there for the ride). these are all subtle ways of expressing power by those who have/lack it. as i said, true independence is dropped as soon as you interact with someone and form any kind of relationship. if you form a friendship you give up the power to take something of his through force most of the time. if you make him a enemy you give up the power of taking something amicably (these are just examples, not the whole things you give up/get from the relationship)
[/quote]
You're defining power as "relating to other people". That's ridiculous.

[Caesius]

The rumor mill is a curious thing. How is it that people get the impression that IRON offered reps to GPA, or that MK will demand all tech over 1K from four alliances?

[Banksy]

[quote name='pasquali' date='14 February 2010 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1266071044' post='2179194']
I doubt IRON and TOP would continue fighting if peace with some reasonable reps was offered.

The reps that I heard MK demands is all tech over 1k from every nation in the offending alliances.

If that's true, and MK won't budge, then I don't see this war ending until every TOP and IRON nation is nuked down to 1k or less tech. Which could take a very long time.

I know I would never surrender to reps like that. Some reps, yes, especially if I had made the blunder they did, but I'd prefer to slug it out to the bitter end than pay reps that would cripple me to that extent.
[/quote]
I loled. Your rumour mill is broken.

[Castles]

How about a perspective from a peon that does not follow the politics or part of gov.


[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='11 February 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1265928652' post='2175720']
The fact people don't want to surrender is a good thing, imo.
[/quote]

Agreed, I don't know the numbers but the majority are just fighting a war created by the active members actions in regards to treaties. TOOL is here due to not only our treaties but also due to IRONs actions to support of TOOL in the past. If one enters a war to honor commitments and does not stay to the end then what is the point of honoring those commitments? (Besides of course being part of special teams, but that only works if there is centralized military coordination)


[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1265986685' post='2177580']
In regards to the actual topic, I believe the mentality as it currently exists in this conflict stems from the fact that a large majority of the combatants on both sides are only in the war because of treaty obligations or chains. Very few of the alliances are actually engaged because they are on some damned crusade or trying to make a moral point.

Thus, they believe they have entered honorably and justly and indeed find themselves on occasion fighting opposite some alliances that they call "friends". Therefore the general opinion seems to be that since they didn't do anything "wrong" by taking part in this war, which is costing both sides quite a bit overall, neither side believes they should have to surrender or pay reperations (in general).

I know that there are some exceptions to this but by and large I believe this to be the case. To justify that I only need to look at last nights screw up between Legion and Sparta. Sparta was asking Legion to pay $600 million in reps. For what? Legion entered to defend a treated ally and is fighting against some allies that they are close to otherwise. They don't believe they did anything wrong in doing so and are thus felt put out by such a demand. And to Sparta's credit, I believe they have some feeling of the same since they immediately went from $600 million to simple white peace in one step.
[/quote]


[quote name='memoryproblems' date='12 February 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1266006904' post='2178043']
I think once TOP/IRON start to seek terms, we'll see a repeat of the Karma war where it takes an additional month to get terms hammered out and for them to agree with them.

I know that my alliance, Echelon, will be in this war until IRON sees peace or until we all hit ZI and our opponents forget about us.
[/quote]

Again Agreed. Besides a place to push buttons, the only real motivation in this war for most is honor.

[quote name='Oktavia' date='13 February 2010 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1266030785' post='2178536']
The majority of alliances aren't surrendering unless x alliance surrenders with them as well.
[/quote]


The war can only end honorably if those that started it act honorably and consider the reprecutions; not only to their own members but to the other alliances they made commitments to.

Personally I vote for the Confusion war, most of us, who do not read these forums regularly have no idea whats going on, thats aleast 80% of those fighting. And then when you take the time to read the forums you realize that 80% of that 20% have no idea whats going on.

Because of the lack of "moral highground" there is the "Do not surrender syndrome" I'm fighting because IRON needs me too. TOOL was asked and we resonded respondingly to defend a trusted ally. Why is IRON fighting, not a flipping clue. We defend IRON and have 6 alliances DOW against us (not complaining mind you) Ask those 6 alliances why they are fighting and you'll get a similar answer as mine.

The point of the game is to get more pixels than the Jones'. It is sad that nukes have become a way to make sure nobody gains many pixels quickly but I digress.

I will not surrender, it makes me happy to hear from our leadership that they will not abandon IRON. So from my perspective its up to IRON to end the war. As I'm sure from most in lets say RIA, its up to SPARTA to end the WAR. Its amusing that some feel its up to the periphials to end what we did not start.

As far as reps are concerned, I'll follow orders but they should be limited to orginal parties (root of the chains) Maybe the chains will be more examined before linked in the future but I'm an optimist.

Disclaimer, I'm a two year old noob, these opinions do not reflect TOOL gov. I'm just shedding some light on the non active perspective, who make up a large portion of planet Bob.

Edited February 14, 2010 by Castles

[jerdge]

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='13 February 2010' post='2179689']When i joined, my alliance was Iron.We were actively monitoring all FAN and VOX nations.Probably NPO was doing the same and others,maybe even you.FAN And VOX did not disappear. Their model is always available.[/quote]
[quote name='memoryproblems' date='13 February 2010' post='2179694']No offense, but the thought of that doesn't scare me as much as you may have wanted.[/quote]
The idea was just to say that the we're not going to "forget" anyone that decided it was a good idea to attack us[sup][b][1][/b][/sup], until the war is over and they have surrendered/accepted to get out of it in some way (e.g.: white peace with a committment to remain neutral until the end of the conflict).

My idea wasn't to "scare" anybody, and even less I was talking of "black lists"[sup][b][2][/b][/sup] or anything like that (if I understand Yggdrazil's post). Any Echelon's nation is welcome to take the individual surrender terms and, unless they later break it, we won't have any reason to even only remember them.

I hope that I cleared the misunderstanding(s); if not please tell me about it.


[size=1][b][1][/b] I consider Echelon's DoW on the MHA to be an aggression, as they declared it in "defence"/support of IRON that had attacked CnG without provocation. I acknowledge that this is just my opinion and that others can legitimately think otherwise: discussing that issue is beyond the scope of this post, I am just explaining my point of view over the Echelon's DoW.
[b][2][/b] You can just follow the «I Object» link in my sig to know what I think about "lists"... [/size]

Edited February 14, 2010 by jerdge

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1266098234' post='2179769']
Of course I can be wrong. I think you're projecting.
[/quote]

off course. all we do as humans is project. however, i'm aware of it. you can't even see how you went up against your words in a few posts in this thread only.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='13 February 2010 - 11:57 PM' timestamp='1266098234' post='2179769']
You're defining power as "relating to other people". That's ridiculous.
[/quote]

just because you can't sense the subtlety of social status and the ways it affects us in the constant struggle for power does not mean it's not happening. as human being all we do is battle for power, be it to be independent, to protect our allies or to smite our enemies.


what you are doing now is something i did also for a long time (and still do occasionally). you're trying to win a argument for the sake of winning (power struggle anyone??)

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='junkahoolik' date='15 February 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1266241595' post='2182870']
off course. all we do as humans is project. however, i'm aware of it. you can't even see how you went up against your words in a few posts in this thread only. [/quote]
I don't see it, but then again you're the one who's running around saying your relativity is fact - which is impossible if relativity is true. Hell, that statement (by the definition of relativity) doesn't even [i]mean anything[/i].

[quote]just because you can't sense the subtlety of social status and the ways it affects us in the constant struggle for power does not mean it's not happening. as human being all we do is battle for power, be it to be independent, to protect our allies or to smite our enemies.

what you are doing now is something i did also for a long time (and still do occasionally). you're trying to win a argument for the sake of winning (power struggle anyone??)
[/quote]
By defining everything to be a power struggle, the term power struggle becomes meaningless. Real useful commentary.

[anenu]

The DNSS (or is it DSS?) is a result of A) Larger warchest so more time to fight, and B) Trying to not leave the war before your allies so that you look tough and people won't be able to criticize you for being cowards for the next 3 years.

[Alterego]

[quote name='anenu' date='15 February 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1266253624' post='2183102']
The DNSS (or is it DSS?) is a result of A) Larger warchest so more time to fight, and B) Trying to not leave the war before your allies so that you look tough and people won't be able to criticize you for being cowards for the next 3 years.
[/quote]
You forgot fun. War is fun, peace is boring.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Alterego

[Castles]

[quote name='Alterego' date='15 February 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1266255780' post='2183142']
You forgot fun. War is fun, peace is boring.
[/quote]

Nation building is fun.

[anenu]

[quote name='Alterego' date='15 February 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1266255780' post='2183142']
You forgot fun. War is fun, peace is boring.
[/quote]

Thats obvious I didn't think it needed to be mentioned.

[lcdt94]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='09 February 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1265774240' post='2171792']
It ends when everyone agrees to white peace. I'd say people aren't willing to surrender because everyone is really bored and there's not much new to accomplish.
[/quote]
Why must you destroy that which you love? Consider how much tech you're losing to nukes right now versus how much tech you would pay us in reps. The longer you draw out this war the greater the reps will become. Your alliance is in absolutely no position to demand white peace. At least we'll know who to blame once TOP is nothing but a memory.

[Gurney Halleck]

Arcturus,

The GPA war isn't something to be proud of. For what it's worth, there are alliances on both sides of the current conflict that went to war with GPA. I cannot speak for them. I can say that TOP regrets her actions in that war, and -even though that was nearly two years ago- considered paying back the GPA back a couple of months ago. We may still; not in an attempt to buy an indulgence, but because that situation left a bad taste in our mouths. It, and a few other more recent happenings, certainly tempered our view on things like reparations - both paying and receiving.

As far as inheriting guilt for all past sins when you join an alliance, I disagree. I do not believe that the sins of the fathers transfer to the sons. As a matter of record, it would be hard to join most established alliances under a rubric so stringent. And, even if one insists on accepting guilt for such things, that does not mean that that designation of 'guilt' is actionable.

As to people who [i]were[/i] a part of the alliance during that time (I was), all I can say is that I believe that all people, alliances make mistakes, and hopefully they learn from them over time and grow.

As always, you mileage may vary.


As to when the war will end, we're at quite the impasse: One side will not stop because of the fear of future aggressions. The other side sees surrender and reparations as an option much worse than fighting on to ZI and beyond. Which side is correct? It doesn't really matter. These are the cards currently in play.

Interesting times we live in.








(edit: misspell)

Edited February 16, 2010 by AAlumni

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='lcdt94' date='15 February 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1266281918' post='2183782']
Why must you destroy that which you love? Consider how much tech you're losing to nukes right now versus how much tech you would pay us in reps. The longer you draw out this war the greater the reps will become. Your alliance is in absolutely no position to demand white peace. At least we'll know who to blame once TOP is nothing but a memory.
[/quote]
Given the choice to blow up all our tech or give it to you.... our choice is quite clear.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='AAlumni' date='15 February 2010 - 09:44 PM' timestamp='1266288293' post='2184040']
Arcturus,

The GPA war isn't something to be proud of. For what it's worth, there are alliances on both sides of the current conflict that went to war with GPA. I cannot speak for them. I can say that TOP regrets her actions in that war, and -even though that was nearly two years ago- considered paying back the GPA back a couple of months ago. We may still; not in an attempt to buy an indulgence, but because that situation left a bad taste in our mouths. It, and a few other more recent happenings, certainly tempered our view on things like reparations - both paying and receiving. [/quote]
Well it's a shame that you didn't listen to people in Citadel who told you at the time that the GPA war was bad news, and it instead took you two years and getting beat on for you to come to that realization.

[quote]As far as inheriting guilt for all past sins when you join an alliance, I disagree. I do not believe that the sins of the fathers transfer to the sons. As a matter of record, it would be hard to join most established alliances under a rubric so stringent. And, even if one insists on accepting guilt for such things, that does not mean that that designation of 'guilt' is actionable.[/quote]
Sons don't choose their fathers, nations choose their alliances. And there are plenty of alliances without such sins on their conscience. Maybe they aren't sanctioned, but maybe that's not what matters.

[quote]As to people who [i]were[/i] a part of the alliance during that time (I was), all I can say is that I believe that all people, alliances make mistakes, and hopefully they learn from them over time and grow. [/quote]
We'll see, won't we.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson

[Gurney Halleck]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292704' post='2184345']
Well it's a shame that you didn't listen to people in Citadel who told you at the time that the GPA war was bad news, and it instead took you two years and getting beat on for you to come to that realization.[/quote]

We should have listened. And, and as I said, that realization occurred well before this war.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292704' post='2184345']
Sons don't choose their fathers, nations choose their alliances. And there are plenty of alliances without such sins on their conscience. Maybe they aren't sanctioned, but maybe that's not what matters.[/quote]


To the first point: I was speaking figuratively. Replace father with 'elder' and son with 'new applicant' if you must. To the second, TOP wasn't sanctioned when I joined. That is a rather recent occurrence. None of that matters. What does matter is that we are a collection of friends.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1266292704' post='2184345']
We'll see, won't we.
[/quote]

Without a doubt.

[Requia]

Are there any alliances not currently offering individual surrender terms? Those are usually pretty mild, and offer an easy escape for someone who doesn't want to 'pay for the sins of their alliance'.

Abandoning your current alliance vs getting nuked repeatedly may not be the best choice in the world, but it is a choice, and every day a nation stays they continue to make that choice.

[Gurney Halleck]

[quote name='Requia' date='15 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266299440' post='2184883']
Are there any alliances not currently offering individual surrender terms? Those are usually pretty mild, and offer an easy escape for someone who doesn't want to 'pay for the sins of their alliance'.

Abandoning your current alliance vs getting nuked repeatedly may not be the best choice in the world, but it is a choice, and every day a nation stays they continue to make that choice.
[/quote]



I welcome their surrender. No judgments will be made about their decision.

[Dragoon II]

Ah, the question that this thread opened up with: "How long will this go on?" Well, as far as Nordreich, we're locked and loaded, rested, and ready for a long fight. We're pretty much smashing our enemies right and left, which is the way it should be. The ZOO is pretty much finished, and Invicta isn't far off, with most of their nations in anarchy. Valhalla might hang in a little longer, but we're not budging. Esprit de Corps, highly motivated troops, intelligence, honor, and loyalty is what wins the day in NoR. One friends told me, "I fear peace looms on the horizon." LOL - typical fear of a Nordlander, that there won't be enough war to go around!

OH, and yes - to answer the last question, NoR is offering individual surrender terms, should Invicta, Valhalla, and the ZOO, et. al want to save themselves.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Dragoon II

[Zizka]

I very much like the new trend of alliances actually sticking with the war longer then a few days - tis the reason why we are seeing more or less equal drops as opposed to one massive beat down. Good show.

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1266248548' post='2183014']
I don't see it, but then again you're the one who's running around saying your relativity is fact - which is impossible if relativity is true. Hell, that statement (by the definition of relativity) doesn't even [i]mean anything[/i].
[/quote]

you're the one saying that only your perspective on all matters is true.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='15 February 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1266248548' post='2183014']
By defining everything to be a power struggle, the term power struggle becomes meaningless. Real useful commentary.
[/quote]

so... if everybody is doing it, it becomes meaningless?? i fail to see the logic...

[M6 Redneck]

Forgive me if this has been said before as I did not take the time to read the prior pages.


All I have seen in this conflict are easy terms of surrender, (What goes as white peace is often surrender). Nations do not want to take these terms and fight on.
So easy terms are rejected, the dominanat party offers harsh terms, [or threatens them]. Why would anybody expect harsh terms to be accepted when easy ones got rejected?

The harsh terms are too rejected. (Because the more you beat someone down the more able they are to pay reps - right)?

An underclass is thus created, nations do not take peace and continue fighting despite losing massive NS. This underclass can still control senators and destroy lower NS alliance nations easily, whilst the opponents rebuild out of the range of the nations they oppress.

Hence no body should surrender, ever, unless they have a really , (medically interesting), little willy.

M6