The emergence of "Do not surrender syndrome"

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266969462' post='2200018']
Ego McEgoson
[/quote]

All hail Grub, Emperor of Waffles.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='23 February 2010 - 07:55 PM' timestamp='1266955143' post='2199385']
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Soon enough everyone except NSO will be at peace and everyone will be talking about how we "deserve" to face perpetual ZI. Belle of the ball to ugly stepsister in a few easy steps.
[/quote]

Oh come on now, you know that's just not true.

Also, I believe its safe to say none are core alliances except the original premptors.


Also, definitely the flustercuck war.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Corinan]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266969462' post='2200018']
If you kindly stop crowing BS youll remember that when Polar peaced out everyone was also peacing with NSO(R&R did so, CSN was prepared to) but Fark had to vote on it so rather then wait paitently NSO decided to rejoin the war and here we are today.

And to think, all could be avoided if Ego McEgoson had just let lolDemocracy do its thing
[/quote]

Yeah except that's just not true. Randomly Jim had already flat out told Emperor Ivan Moldavi the Humble that he would not be seeking peace with us. Keep telling this lie over and over again, you'll never be able to make it true.

[Griff]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='22 February 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1266812603' post='2196159']
The fringe alliances are beginning to surrender now. I give it a week, two max, before we're down to TOP, IRON, Polar and NSO.
[/quote]
Why Polar?

[Jrenster]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266969462' post='2200018']
If you kindly stop crowing BS youll remember that when Polar peaced out everyone was also peacing with NSO(R&R did so, CSN was prepared to) but Fark had to vote on it so rather then wait paitently NSO decided to rejoin the war and here we are today.

And to think, all could be avoided if Ego McEgoson had just let lolDemocracy do its thing
[/quote]

How is it that after all this time, after countless reiterations, that you guys STILL don't understand?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Griff' date='23 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1266972655' post='2200143']
Why Polar?
[/quote]

For one, because they started this whole fiasco. Being at war with both sides will also slow down peace discussions quite a bit I imagine.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266969462' post='2200018']
If you kindly stop crowing BS youll remember that when Polar peaced out everyone was also peacing with NSO(R&R did so, CSN was prepared to) but Fark had to vote on it so rather then wait paitently NSO decided to rejoin the war and here we are today.

And to think, all could be avoided if Ego McEgoson had just let lolDemocracy do its thing
[/quote]
Oh not this again.

[Mussolandia]

They will repeat the same lie, kevin. The only truth is that said peace offer never existed and Fark were not ready to let us go.

[Pablo Monkey]

I thought it was the Do Not Let Them Surrender Syndrome?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1266969462' post='2200018']
If you kindly stop crowing BS youll remember that when Polar peaced out everyone was also peacing with NSO(R&R did so, CSN was prepared to) but Fark had to vote on it so rather then wait paitently NSO decided to rejoin the war and here we are today.

And to think, all could be avoided if Ego McEgoson had just let lolDemocracy do its thing
[/quote]

To add to what some of my comrades have already stated, no.

In order to "re-join" a war there would need to be some point at which we left, correct? We are still fighting the same war that we have been fighting since Fark declared on us. Randomly Jim informed me that NSO would not get white peace and then later in the day he told Heft that he had not talked to me at all, which is just weird, but again that we would not get peace.

Every other alliance was offered and accepted white peace. Real white peace without terms or stipulations. The NSO is now supposed to be happy to take Fark's !@#$ and surrender even thought the parties it was fighting for promised them white peace and left the field of battle? I call !@#$%^&* on that.

The bottom line is that no one even knows what NSO would do in the face of a real white peace offer because it has never been made.

Continuing to spout about my re-declaration, which was a full day after Polar and everyone else peaced out and after being told twice that we would not get the same treatment, somehow made this into a solely NSO aggressive move is asinine.

[Kryievla]

[quote name='wickedj' date='23 February 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1266969462' post='2200018']
If you kindly stop crowing BS youll remember that when Polar peaced out everyone was also peacing with NSO(R&R did so, CSN was prepared to) but Fark had to vote on it so rather then wait paitently NSO decided to rejoin the war and here we are today.

And to think, all could be avoided if Ego McEgoson had just let lolDemocracy do its thing
[/quote]

What I keep seeing is that Fark said no to white peace.

Granted I've trouble keeping up with who's on who here, but I don't recall NSO ever leaving the war, which is something Moldavi addressed also. How can you re-enter when you never left?

I have no dog in this race, but I find it absolutely disgraceful that an alliance who entered in good faith while doing nothing but honoring obligations, is being treated in such a manner.

Good luck, NSO. I for one would love to see you offered white peace.

[EmperorNortonI]

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

It does ensure that White Peace + Beer Review will not be offered again, though.

[Griff]

[quote name='Emperor Norton I' date='24 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1267006127' post='2201207']
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
[/quote]
And yet Fark's been happy to sprout crap out of thin air to make themselves look honourable and merciful, yes? Practice what you preach.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Griff

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='23 February 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1266987232' post='2200565']
They will repeat the same lie, kevin. The only truth is that said peace offer never existed and Fark were not ready to let us go.
[/quote]
Both Fark and your leader were willing to reach a peace agreement (not a white peace, but requiring NSO to remain out of the war and to complete a beer review). I mean, that obviously means they want to war you forever, the drunk monsters.

[Windsor]

[quote name='Overlord Shinnra' date='09 February 2010 - 07:49 PM' timestamp='1265774001' post='2171782']

The questions then become;

How does this war end?
When does this war end?
Why does everyone feel the need to push their pixels to the limit all of a sudden?

Discuss.
[/quote]


It's very easy. Alliance leaders have the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of their alliances. Their members have entrusted them to make the right decisions that will secure a bright future for them and whichever alliance that they are a part of.

Some leaders are failing at their responsibilities in this respect, and war is what separates them from those that aren't. Any sensible leadership would surrender in the face of imminent annihilation. Others like to be annihilated first, so that rebuilding will take much longer and terms will be much more severe.

I think that you will be able to find a better answer by exploring the phenomenon of why people choose to support poor leadership.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Windsor' date='01 March 2010 - 08:00 AM' timestamp='1267394654' post='2208858']
I think that you will be able to find a better answer by exploring the phenomenon of why people choose to support poor leadership.
[/quote]
Or why other alliances want certain leaders out of the picture by using propaganda to make them look bad?

[Windsor]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='28 February 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1267396711' post='2208908']
Or why other alliances want certain leaders out of the picture by using propaganda to make them look bad?
[/quote]


Indeed. What we're witnessing here is either extreme (and ideally unnecessary) measures by some leadership to keep their alliances strong by using politics and propaganda to weaken the competition, or just more examples of poor leadership in general.

After all, if you're unable to ascend by your own merit and style, you will have to try to pull everyone else around you down. From what I see, most popular leaderships are spending more time on the latter, and not enough time making the right decisions, and executing their responsibilities.... responsibly.

It's very confusing to me how, despite bold and blatant irresponsibility, they still manage to rally people to support them enough to carry out their own warped objectives. "Birds of a feather flock together" I suppose, however, it seems to me that once you join a particular group, a feather is issued to you, and you are required to display it proudly - regardless of whether or not you like it.

Tech-raiding is of no exception. You are either for it, or against it. I think you'd be surprised how many anti-tech raiding alliances are out there with members that support it. Where we have all (or most of us) collectively seemed to have failed is that we began to value our nations more than our beliefs.

Not too shabby for a theory, I suppose.

[Jinnai]

[quote name='Windsor' date='28 February 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1267400584' post='2209012']
Tech-raiding is of no exception. You are either for it, or against it. I think you'd be surprised how many anti-tech raiding alliances are out there with members that support it. Where we have all (or most of us) collectively seemed to have failed is that we began to value our nations more than our beliefs.
[/quote]Not quite so black and white you paint a picture. Even people who are for tech raiding, usually have some restrictions on how it is conducted such as only on people who are X days inactive, or alliances smaller than Y, or only on an individual basis (ie no mass tech raids on an entire alliance by other alliance(s)), etc. Or maybe they're okay with it in general, but they believe that you do so at your own risk. In essence, when an alliance says we won't back you up if they retaliate, they mean it. For each person they might have different standards, but I'd argue very few are for no-holds-barred tech raiding.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Jinnai

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='09 February 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1265776682' post='2171915']
the reason I am not surrendering is quite simple.
I like where I am at the moment and I won't surrender.
[/quote]

The fact that you post "no non TOP targets on my list" in your last declaration against a TOP nation is pretty remarkable in and of itself. Considering TOP entered this war to defend your alliance, and you somehow hold a grudge to hit them instead of those your Emperor originally decided to war is a contradiction. I can see how you could waffle through this war as many of your alliance mates are doing hitting only TOP. It is the easy way out. But, yeah, continue your not surrendering cause you are a great guy motif. LOL NpO have been nothing but vultures in this conflict since they figured they were on the losing side and hit TOP, and you are part of that paradigm.

Exhibit A:

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=333691&Extended=1

Edited March 1, 2010 by Chalaskan

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='01 March 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1267426551' post='2209663']
The fact that you post "no non TOP targets on my list" in your last declaration against a TOP nation is pretty remarkable in and of itself. Considering TOP entered this war to defend your alliance, and you somehow hold a grudge to hit them instead of those your Emperor originally decided to war is a contradiction. I can see how you could waffle through this war as many of your alliance mates are doing hitting only TOP. It is the easy way out. But, yeah, continue your not surrendering cause you are a great guy motif. LOL NpO have been nothing but vultures in this conflict since they figured they were on the losing side and hit TOP, and you are part of that paradigm.

Exhibit A:

http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=333691&Extended=1
[/quote]
The reasons for polaris war against TOP are more complex than you would imagine.
But you are only a TOP applicant at this moment in time so I doubt you have had the time to be fully briefed on this matter.
And since you are unlikely to believe me no matter what I say, I can only suggest that you talk to your leaders and get the full story.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='01 March 2010 - 06:27 AM' timestamp='1267446643' post='2209838']
The reasons for polaris war against TOP are more complex than you would imagine.
But you are only a TOP applicant at this moment in time so I doubt you have had the time to be fully briefed on this matter.
And since you are unlikely to believe me no matter what I say, I can only suggest that you talk to your leaders and get the full story.
[/quote]

And to you I suggest you not tote the applicant line doesn't know anything. Chalk has been a member in TOP for the better part of 2 years. He left to join NpO to fight with you all when TOP was slow on declaring for your side. Since I'm sure Grub hasn't taken the time to fully explain to you his reasoning for destroying NpO's political clout for the future other then "because MK called us in, we're going to go back on our word completely" I'd suggest that you talk to your leaders and get the full story.

Edited March 1, 2010 by LiquidMercury

[AlmightyGrub]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='02 March 2010 - 03:18 AM' timestamp='1267464145' post='2210002']
And to you I suggest you not tote the applicant line doesn't know anything. Chalk has been a member in TOP for the better part of 2 years. He left to join NpO to fight with you all when TOP was slow on declaring for your side. Since I'm sure Grub hasn't taken the time to fully explain to you his reasoning for destroying NpO's political clout for the future other then "because MK called us in, we're going to go back on our word completely" I'd suggest that you talk to your leaders and get the full story.
[/quote]

I am more than amused that people believe the world is cast in stone, has no variation possible and should remain steadfast despite changing circumstances... but then again it is TOP isn't it. Thanks for putting me in this situation with the most retarded declaration of war (politically) from an alliance I thought had considerable intelligence. Perhaps if you want to rally around my cause you could stick to said cause instead of telling the world what your real plans are so overtly. But please do continue LM, I am fully aware of my political capital approaching bankruptcy.

[Groucho Marx]

[quote name='Overlord Shinnra' date='09 February 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1265774001' post='2171782']
We are now almost two weeks into the most destructive war known to Bob and we have had a grand total of 1 - 3 surrenders out of a possible almost 100 alliances. This after another war had just transpired or continued into this one. We have several alliances that have lost NS to the clip of 50% of their total starting NS and continue to freefall with more not far behind. We used to see alliances surrender once they got uncomfortable but I have talked to several whom I consider decent opinions on the matter and all agree that this war doesn't even look close to over.

The questions then become;

How does this war end?
When does this war end?
Why does everyone feel the need to push their pixels to the limit all of a sudden?


Discuss.
[/quote]

Because those who were involved with most of the previous beatdowns are trying to prove a point that they're tough after the year or so most of us have spent ridiculing them for hiding behind allies and taking the easy way out when the tables turned.

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='09 February 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1265774240' post='2171792']
[b]It ends when everyone agrees to white peace[/b]. I'd say people aren't willing to surrender because everyone is really bored and there's not much new to accomplish.
[/quote]

You made me chuckle.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='01 March 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1267471517' post='2210115']
I am more than amused that people believe the world is cast in stone, has no variation possible and should remain steadfast despite changing circumstances... but then again it is TOP isn't it. Thanks for putting me in this situation with the most retarded declaration of war (politically) from an alliance I thought had considerable intelligence. Perhaps if you want to rally around my cause you could stick to said cause instead of telling the world what your real plans are so overtly. But please do continue LM, I am fully aware of my political capital approaching bankruptcy.
[/quote]

I agree the world is not cast in stone, but similar to how it took ODN to become taken pseudo serious after their debacles of the past, how GATO is just now re-emerging for a 2nd time (pre 1V war they were also emerging), Polaris will take time to emerge from your actions. Do your actions have a reason that is left unsaid? I'm sure they do, I for one would always appreciate the reasoning behind being betrayed by someone I have held in the highest esteem for quite some time, have consistently stood up for in all arenas, and someone I consider to be a good person. Grub, as always you had the ability to say "No, lets not do this." On the contrary, you knew of the plan and took it as it was. Rally around your cause? I fully did. I as always was there because Polaris was doing the right thing in my mind. Will others use what I saw as a valid cause to go after their own agendas? Yes I'm sure. A prime example would be some in TOP during this conflict, or GOD during Karma with their vindictive nature towards NPO (pre-war they were much more amicable about "Karma", then it became GTFO of our business towards anyone who had an opinion that differed). I stand by my beliefs and the cause that we rallied behind. Sadly, it would seem you did not. Or to your credit you felt as though TOP was only about blowing up CnG besides the fact that many truly were supportive of Polaris and their ideals and that many held Polaris in the highest esteem. Why some, when it looked as though TOP would stay out, went to NpO to fight for that cause. I can agree to you being upset with TOP's DoW (the actual wording), but to target me personally against it I will take offense, because I only was there to fight the same fight Polaris was fighting. Yes, you're political capital is approaching bankruptcy, I for one am saddened by that. I truly felt as though you had Polaris going in the right direction and one that many in the cyberverse felt was a general sense of "wow they pretty much are awesome now." I know for one had I ever chosen to go to an open alliance, Polaris would of been my first stop. Though I have ultimately felt betrayed, I still consider you a quality person and will most likely always do so.

[Qaianna]

Don't know if this's been brought up yet, but how much of this is simple stubbornness on the part of both winning and losing leaders?

Another thread was opened up discussing what 'white peace' means lately, and I have to ask how that definition's possible changing may reflect on people just refusing to admit defeat. Especially if a culture starts heaping praise on someone who refuses to actually admit it (or, at least, when it's someone they don't like trying to get the other to surrender).

Is there also an effect from how much derision there is when it comes to trying to save infrastructure and so on from devastation? A rather vocal segment (not a majority, just a loud bunch) seem to love using the phrase 'pixel-hugger' and similar to suggest that the only purpose of growing a nation is to get it knocked back down again.