neneko Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='janax' date='12 February 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1265994262' post='2177737'] I expect better from Umbrella though. [/quote] You expected something else from LJ? Really? Shows how much time you spent talking to umbrella I guess. (no offense lj I like your style) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='12 February 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1265990772' post='2177676'] I don't understand why a distinction even needs to be created. A there is nothing wrong with defeated alliance acquiescing, and kindly being allowed to take up their things and just simply going home. The third and apparently new found definition of "white peace" seems....I don't know....embarrassingly prideful. Either way, congratulations to all involved on achieving mother of pearl peace. [/quote] The distinction should be made because the distinction exists. Surrender and white peace are not now, and have never been, the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinite Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1265995573' post='2177760'] The distinction should be made because the distinction exists. Surrender and white peace are not now, and have never been, the same thing. [/quote] We need a CN glossary. White peace is... White Surrender is... Spying is... Aggressive war is... It would really help things along. At any rate, everyone involved in these talks considered white peace to be what is apparently white surrender, and there was no confusion at any time as to what was meant by the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 05:26 PM' timestamp='1265995573' post='2177760'] The distinction should be made because the distinction exists. Surrender and white peace are not now, and have never been, the same thing. [/quote] lol "You are wrong, therefore you must be corrected". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceptor o Sordidness Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='janax' date='12 February 2010 - 08:43 AM' timestamp='1265993007' post='2177713'] Classy. No. Really. [/quote] [quote name='janax' date='12 February 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1265994262' post='2177737'] I expect better from Umbrella though. [/quote] I completely agree. Some of us aren't as friendly as others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightySquare Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Good luck with the rebuild guys. You put up a good fight from what I hear from those TCI nations you were engaged with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) MASH and Quantum showed honnor and posed good fights. The acceptance of the easy terms was a clever move. Congratulations. Now lets continue our normal programation... Edited February 12, 2010 by King Louis the II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archon Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 I'm not sure why everyone is suddenly crying about the "misuse" of White Peace. Within the realm of this game, it has taken on a meaning that may be different from other realities, but within this one it's a nice, happy way of saying a reparationless (and generally lacking in any negative terms) peace. It makes everyone happy since no one "surrenders" and attempts to end an otherwise bad event on a good note. We have a history of abusing and misusing terms in this world, and I don't see why people should get distraught over some and not others. It is what we make it to be. Anyway, to Quantum and M*A*S*H, you guys fought a good fight (especially the latter, given their situation), and to hymenbreach - I wouldn't get that worked up (to use the word 'hate', I mean), over war related trashtalk. It's annoying machismo, but really it's nothing more than that. Your reaction is the only true defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='TheNeverender' date='12 February 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1265997533' post='2177807'] I'm not sure why everyone is suddenly crying about the "misuse" of White Peace. Within the realm of this game, it has taken on a meaning that may be different from other realities, but within this one it's a nice, happy way of saying a reparationless (and generally lacking in any negative terms) peace. It makes everyone happy since no one "surrenders" and attempts to end an otherwise bad event on a good note. We have a history of abusing and misusing terms in this world, and I don't see why people should get distraught over some and not others. It is what we make it to be. Anyway, to Quantum and M*A*S*H, you guys fought a good fight (especially the latter, given their situation), and to hymenbreach - I wouldn't get that worked up (to use the word 'hate', I mean), over war related trashtalk. It's annoying machismo, but really it's nothing more than that. Your reaction is the only true defeat. [/quote] Nobody is distraught, as far as I can tell. It's just that surrendering alliances and white peace do not work together. White peace is unconditional. This peace has a condition, where MASH & Quantum accepted that condition. It doesn't matter how minor the condition is. It's a condition, therefore they are surrendering. A white peace would have been all parties declaring peace with one another. (That's the end of the statement..) Tacking on conditions to a "white peace" doesn't allow it to remain "white peace". Again, I don't think anyone is really distraught over the terminology. It's just that people need to learn what words mean before they use them. It's quite simple. If this is "close enough" to white peace, then Mushroom Kingdom is "close enough" to LUE. See what I did? (Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way - it's just a good example, and Archon posted ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hymenbreach Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Can we call it 'Off White Peace' Or 'Apple White Peace' and be done with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 congrats on peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='x Tela x' date='12 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1265999205' post='2177842'] Nobody is distraught, as far as I can tell. It's just that surrendering alliances and white peace do not work together. White peace is unconditional. This peace has a condition, where MASH & Quantum accepted that condition. It doesn't matter how minor the condition is. It's a condition, therefore they are surrendering. A white peace would have been all parties declaring peace with one another. (That's the end of the statement..) Tacking on conditions to a "white peace" doesn't allow it to remain "white peace". Again, I don't think anyone is really distraught over the terminology. It's just that people need to learn what words mean before they use them. It's quite simple. If this is "close enough" to white peace, then Mushroom Kingdom is "close enough" to LUE. See what I did? (Not trying to rub anyone the wrong way - it's just a good example, and Archon posted ) [/quote] Well if that's the definition of white peace that will be shouted on the hilltops from your neck of the woods, then I would be setting your sights on "mother of pearl peace" or "white surrender" or "almost-white-but-not-quite-because-there-is-a-term-that-says-you-cant-reenter-and-you-admit-defeat peace" or something because expecting that definition to be applied in practice is just silly. Edited February 12, 2010 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='12 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266001088' post='2177892'] Well if that's the definition of white peace that will be shouted on the hilltops from your neck of the woods, then I would be setting your sights on "mother of pearl peace" or "white surrender" or "almost-white-but-not-quite-because-there-is-a-term-that-says-you-cant-reenter-and-you-admit-defeat peace" or something because expecting that definition to be applied in practice is just silly. [/quote] I believe you misunderstand. Nobody that I see is criticizing the fact that there are conditions to this surrender; what they are commenting on is that this is [i]not[/i] white peace, it's a misuse of the term. It's no different than for example if two alliances announced a treaty calling it a NAP, if it was clearly a MDP then people would point that out. Doesn't mean they are against the signing of MDPs, just that the wrong term was used. "Grey peace" or light peace seem like they would work. Edited February 12, 2010 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 White peace works fine for me. M*A*S*H & Quantum seem fine with it as well, they announced it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='Lord Brendan' date='12 February 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1266003262' post='2177953'] I believe you misunderstand. Nobody that I see is criticizing the fact that there are conditions to this surrender; what they are commenting on is that this is [i]not[/i] white peace, it's a misuse of the term. It's no different than for example if two alliances announced a treaty calling it a NAP, if it was clearly a MDP then people would point that out. Doesn't mean they are against the signing of MDPs, just that the wrong term was used. "Grey peace" or light peace seem like they would work. [/quote] Oh believe me, I hear it can be quite the nuancical sticking point in some areas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='Kowalski' date='12 February 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1266003381' post='2177958'] White peace works fine for me. M*A*S*H & Quantum seem fine with it as well, they announced it. [/quote] As with any society, some people are happy being incorrect. No big deal, but being happy about being incorrect doesn't change the fact that such people are indeed incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1266004646' post='2177976'] As with any society, some people are happy being incorrect. No big deal, but being happy about being incorrect doesn't change the fact that such people are indeed incorrect. [/quote] True, but it also means that those of us who can accept it can have a good old chuckle at those who insist on charging round reminding us how wrong we are. Edited February 12, 2010 by Kowalski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Kowalski' date='12 February 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1266005098' post='2177985'] True, but it also means that those of us who can accept it can have a good old chuckle at those who insist on charging round reminding us how wrong we are. [/quote] Good for you. I am not so much charging as simply pointing out a recently common error in normal international and interalliance discourse. Edited February 12, 2010 by Ivan Moldavi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Hey yo FARK, when you get NSO to surrender /r/ you make them call it "White Peace". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='LJ Scott' date='12 February 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1266008212' post='2178088'] Hey yo FARK, when you get NSO to surrender /r/ you make them call it "White Peace". [/quote] Yeah Fark, you do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander thrawn Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 My question is who defined "White Peace" for the first time on Bob that would be the most important precedent to look at for a definition. But the all knowing Wikipedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_peace [quote]The term status quo ante bellum comes from Latin meaning literally, the state in which things were before the war. The term was originally [b]used in treaties[/b] to refer to the withdrawal of enemy troops and the restoration of prewar leadership. When used as such, it means that no side gains or loses territory or economic and political rights. This contrasts with uti possidetis, where each side retains whatever territory and other property it holds at the end of the war.[/quote] Now, since neither coalition has given in at this point it can't be a "white peace" in totality because after all, only a few alliances surrendered or achieved peace. But the phrase "used in treaties" would imply at least some "terms" not beneficial or punitive but terms nonetheless, after-all what point is there in a peace treaty/accord/agreement that doesn't at least intend to keep the peace for some length of time? But who want's to e-lawyer this anyway, let us use the term Argyle Peace in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='12 February 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1266006608' post='2178028'] Good for you. I am not so much charging as simply pointing out a recently common error in normal international and interalliance discourse. [/quote] Good for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='commander thrawn' date='12 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1266011502' post='2178166'] My question is who defined "White Peace" for the first time on Bob that would be the most important precedent to look at for a definition. But the all knowing Wikipedia says en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_peace Now, since neither coalition has given in at this point it can't be a "white peace" in totality because after all, only a few alliances surrendered or achieved peace. But the phrase "used in treaties" would imply at least some "terms" not beneficial or punitive but terms nonetheless, after-all what point is there in a peace treaty/accord/agreement that doesn't at least intend to keep the peace for some length of time? But who want's to e-lawyer this anyway, let us use the term Argyle Peace in the future [/quote] Well, using the bit you quoted, this is indeed white peace, as the only real term is a commitment to remain at peace, which is kind of required to differentiate this from a ceasefire, since those who demand that white peace must be termless are actually arguing for a ceasefire. Even beyond that, there is such a thing as 'common usage' the meaning of words and terms changes over time, and depending on the group using them. Literalists may attempt to nitpick what what peace means exactly, but here, its generally used to refer to any surrender/peace agreement that does not include the traditional terms such as military disarmament, monetary reparations, or other punitive articles. An alliance exited a war with the only condition being they wouldn't jump back in. While this might technically be an infringement on their political power, it is to my mind a bare minimum to be expected "Yes you we'll stop fighting, just promise you won't stab us in the back the second we're not looking" is what the term amounts to, I do not believe that to be an onerous burden to place on on someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Alterego' date='12 February 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1265976798' post='2177442'] Its not white peace its a surrender with conditions imposed by the victor. Fair play to The Legion. o/ The complete lack of respect shown to beaten opponents by some people here is pathetic. [/quote] Don't be so pedantic, they got peace they surrendered. They were not bullied into surrendering and they weren't made to send any reparations. Must you continue to make stupid attempts to spin everything? I mean really, you're not just grasping for straws anymore. You have fallen helplessly off a cliff, into a ravine and you're flailing in mid air screaming like a little girl about how unfair it is. This goes for everyone else on the other side bawwing that it's so so unfair that they entered an aggressive war against us and that we're not just letting you get away with it with a slap on the wrist. Also congratulations on the peace. Edited February 12, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander thrawn Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 [quote name='TypoNinja' date='12 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1266015158' post='2178240'] Well, using the bit you quoted, this is indeed white peace, as the only real term is a commitment to remain at peace, which is kind of required to differentiate this from a ceasefire, since those who demand that white peace must be termless are actually arguing for a ceasefire. Even beyond that, there is such a thing as 'common usage' the meaning of words and terms changes over time, and depending on the group using them. Literalists may attempt to nitpick what what peace means exactly, but here, its generally used to refer to any surrender/peace agreement that does not include the traditional terms such as military disarmament, monetary reparations, or other punitive articles. An alliance exited a war with the only condition being they wouldn't jump back in. While this might technically be an infringement on their political power, it is to my mind a bare minimum to be expected "Yes you we'll stop fighting, just promise you won't stab us in the back the second we're not looking" is what the term amounts to, I do not believe that to be an onerous burden to place on on someone. [/quote] Exactly, since a peace agreement itself requires the terms that nations actually stop fighting. 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.