\m/ Decree

[Alterego]

[quote name='Newhotness' date='16 February 2010 - 03:39 AM' timestamp='1266291588' post='2184267']
I bet, that most of you that are using the "you must not know BAPS/Valhalla" line would would complaining about how \m/ *didnt* offer terms when the war is over. Youre just looking for a reason to talk !@#$ about/to them.

But, im pretty sure \m/ doesnt expect or want any of you to accept these terms (except for the nation TJ mentioned). They only gave em to prevent you from complaining later that they didnt.
[/quote]
Dont worry I'll still complain that they were never offered anyway.

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='16 February 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1266346667' post='2185900']
So if I were to surrender to TOP, then turn around, violate my terms after re-arming myself and attack TOP again, you would be a hypocrite by your logic here for ZIing me.
[/quote]
Re-arming and re-entering the war are much different than having 26% troops but both would result in a ZI sentence from /m\

This term turns a nation from a POW into a lifer depending on the /m\ood of /m\
[quote]5. Change your Alliance Affiliation to “\m/ POW” and do not change to any other alliance affiliation for the remainder of the war [b]or until released by the \m/ Triumvirate[/b][/quote]

Anyway discussing the flaws in the terms its a moot point, we are happy where we are and getting ever closer to your non SDI nations

[Chief Savage Man]

Yes, we would totally ZI somebody if their troop level isn't exactly 25% of their population. .1% over or under is unacceptable. It must be exactly 25%.

[Acetone]

[quote name='Alterego' date='16 February 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1266348898' post='2185967']
Re-arming and re-entering the war are much different than having 26% troops but both would result in a ZI sentence from /m\

This term turns a nation from a POW into a lifer depending on the /m\ood of /m\
[/quote]
[url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/FAN-1V_War"]Valhalla wouldn't dream of doing something like that[/url], right? Funny, your allies do it to the entirety of FAN over a few factories, and somehow we're the ones who you're 100% certain will attack someone over a slight infraction of terms.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1266346385' post='2185886']
I don't think that insisting on the old, patently useless 25% troops term, and then noting that violators will be ZId, demonstrates any sort of noble intentions.
[/quote]
Noble intentions like saving the NPO from GPA?

[supersystem]

[quote name='erikz' date='16 February 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1266344094' post='2185805']
To all you complainers:

I don't get the whole 'how do you !@#$@#$ dare to offer peace terms' rhetoric. If \m/ wouldn't have offered them you would have given them a hard time about that. Just be gracious they offered terms; what do you suggest them to do, PZI BAPS?


[/quote]
I (and I assume I speak for most of BAPS) don't have a problem with m issuing individual surrender terms, but the OP mentioned BAPS members had been approaching them for terms which is not the case. And from what I can gather it is also not true for Valhalla (aside from one ghost).

[quote]It has been brought to my attention that there are individuals within Valhalla and BAPS that are looking to surrender since their leadership believes they can fight a losing war forever.[/quote]

In addition to these factual errors, the tone of the OP couldn't be further from the truth. BAPS morale is strongest at war. We will contonue to fight until our WCs run out or our Trium tell us to stop.

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266346570' post='2185895']
Would you like to get together on IRC sometime, so I can train you in how to form a viable thesis? I would be very happy to help. Please contact me.
[/quote]
If \m/ desires to prolong this war further with an unwarranted aggressive strike, I will get in touch.

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='Alterego' date='16 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266348898' post='2185967']
Re-arming and re-entering the war are much different than having 26% troops but both would result in a ZI sentence from /m\

This term turns a nation from a POW into a lifer depending on the /m\ood of /m\
[/quote]
Can you find me anywhere where we have stated that not being at strictly 25% will result in being ZId? I'd like to imagine our triumvirs have better things to do than make sure POWs have exactly 25% troops at all times. Your argument is completely baseless and you know it.

[Joe Stupid]

I'll surrender to \m/ if I can have sexual relations with EM.

<3

But seriously fair terms.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Joe Stupid' date='16 February 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1266353274' post='2186093']
I'll surrender to \m/ if I can have sexual relations with EM.

<3

But seriously fair terms.
[/quote]

Please Marx has been such a pain lately. Maybe you can get him to loosen up.

[Toga01]

Just.. Lol..

good to see that despite being the complete opposite of the \m/ we once treatied as Valhalla.. you can still bring the lulz

[Jonesing]

[quote name='Starfox101' date='16 February 2010 - 10:27 AM' timestamp='1266316022' post='2185346']
Well, that's pretty funny. A guy posturing from peace mode. Yeah, you're really scaring us.
[/quote]
Nice burn dude, The best thing is, I was in a 4 day stagger and yet still somehow managed to get to peace mode... go \m/

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='16 February 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1266343782' post='2185793']
I know, right? BAPS insists they're amazing fighters but what I hear is what I hear so God forbid we make terms available to those who may want them.

How terrible! \m/ is out to ruin the game for sure!
[/quote]
Offer terms all you like, we can just ignore them, but don't go around saying there are BAPS nations asking to surrender. [u]No[/u] BAPS nation has been looking to surrender, and from what I hear No Valhalla nation has either, bar some ghost you guys are citing...

[MadScotII]

Joke Announcements got boring back in 2007...

Good luck to all though and I promise to give, once this war is over (and if it doesn't break any terms) the first person who gets a BAPS/Valhalla nation that is not a ghost and has been a member of said alliance for more than 93 days a nice wee prize.

Edited February 16, 2010 by MadScotsman

[Crymson]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='16 February 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1266353105' post='2186082']
If \m/ desires to prolong this war further with an unwarranted aggressive strike, I will get in touch.
[/quote]

Aww... is something wrong? Can I help you with the fear that is driving you to not respond to my argument?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Crymson

[M6 Redneck]

The BAPs and Valhalla nations I face are fighting hard as expected. If I accept these terms will \m/ protect me from these nasty men that want to get me?

\M/6

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='16 February 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1266346181' post='2185878']
Coming from you, Sargun, that really means a lot. I'll take what you said into consideration at the next boardroom meeting.
[/quote]
Good to know that [b]somebody [/b]listens to a voice of reason around here.

[Merrie Melodies]

Possibly the best thing to do is to recind this announcement, judging from the complaining \m/ must totally be crazy to offer general terms to an opponent during war.

In fact I think we should forever shelf the idea of terms with out present enemies, maybe this would make them happier.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Merrie Melodies

[Benjamin Smythe]

Shame, I suppose. No terms extend to the lovely animals of our Zoo, so fight on I shall. Oblivion, here I come.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='16 February 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1266360257' post='2186355']
Possibly the best thing to do is to recind this announcement, judging from the complaining \m/ must totally be crazy to offer general terms to an opponent during war.

In fact I think we should forever shelf the idea of terms with out present enemies, maybe this would make them happier.
[/quote]
So its eternal war with no chance of peace, perma zi for both alliances.

[Earogema]

I love how people are arguing about how nobody will accept terms [i]and[/i] argue against how the terms are unfair at the same time.

If they're so unfair, then nobody will surrender, and thus, nobody will care. If you're not going to surrender, you either think the terms are unjust, or you just don't give a damn about accepting them. The terms are obviously for that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of our enemies who want to accept these terms.

Also, for all the people claiming we're going to ZI somebody for having just over the 25% - Get over yourselves. We saw the fallout from that action when NPO did it to FAN. It's just a basic de jure guideline that only has to be reasonably followed - Like a speed limit.

EDIT: Besides, I don't think there will be any ZIs because 1. Nobody will surrender to us and 2. I don't think we really care all that much about ZI'ing a POW as compared to an actual target.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Earogema

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Alterego' date='16 February 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1266360858' post='2186367']
So its eternal war with no chance of peace, perma zi for both alliances.
[/quote]
I guess we would have to see how the chips fall when the time comes and other alliances begin peacing out.

[Trout]

u guyz r a bunch of thugs

[RePePe]

As has been previously stated, I think neither Valhalla nor BAPS will produce any nations that surrender other than some ghosts perhaps. It is possible to defeat our numbers, yes. However, you can never [i]really[/i] defeat us.

I also find it worth noting, the impression from talk is that we are being bombarded but will continue to fight no matter how low we go. I compiled these brief statistics:

[quote]Total Alliance NS Data

Valhalla
2/13: 1,424,490
2/15: 1,287,419
2/16: 1,273,015

4-Day Trend: -151,475
1-Day Trend: -14,404

\m/
2/13: 1,795,026
2/15: 1,661,298
2/16: 1,622,986

4-Day Trend: -172,040
1-Day Trend: -38,312 [/quote]

As you can see we are definitely not being bombarded to ZI or defeat, we are not even losing very badly at all, despite the fact that we have other alliances on us besides you. In fact, there's a phrase that "it's all about the trends." Based on the trends, \m/ is not even in the position to offer terms and actually believe anyone will accept.

These terms are funny, because all \m/ is is that annoying kid who tries to hit you when all you have to do is put your hand on their forehead and hold back the flailin' child. I guess these terms are for your egos and imaginations.

Edited February 17, 2010 by RePePe

[Earogema]

[quote name='RePePe' date='16 February 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1266366605' post='2186535']
As has been previously stated, I think neither Valhalla nor BAPS will produce any nations that surrender other than some ghosts perhaps. It is possible to defeat our numbers, yes. However, you can never [i]really[/i] defeat us.

I also find it worth noting, the impression from talk is that we are being bombarded but will continue to fight no matter how low we go. I compiled these brief statistics:



As you can see we are definitely not being bombarded to ZI or defeat, we are not even losing very badly at all, despite the fact that we have other alliances on us besides you. In fact, there's a phrase that "it's all about the trends." Based on the trends, \m/ is not even in the position to offer terms and actually believe anyone will accept.

These terms are funny, because all \m/ is is that annoying kid who tries to hit you when all you have to do is put your hand on their forehead and hold back the flailin' child. I guess these terms are for your egos and imaginations.
[/quote]
You do realize we've fought in like 3 different fronts since our inception on Christmas of last year, meaning we're not even 2 months old yet, right?

Besides, these are individual terms, for nations who were not as prepared as you were. Yes, yes, "THEY ARE ALL MIGHTY VALHALLAN NATIONS WHO WHERE ALL PREPARED" blah blah.

For example: I was fighting a nation with 92 million on hand - At 6k NS. Now at first, I was scared as hell. However, he has launched only 2 ground attacks, I have won every single ground attack, and I've taken little to no damage every single day. He's been doing nothing. I'm not sure why, but I think it would be in his own individual interest to surrender. Will he? Hell I don't know, I doubt it. Though we offered the terms because he might want to.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Earogema

[Kryievla]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='16 February 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1266360257' post='2186355']
Possibly the best thing to do is to recind this announcement, judging from the complaining \m/ must totally be crazy to offer general terms to an opponent during war.

In fact I think we should forever shelf the idea of terms with out present enemies, maybe this would make them happier.
[/quote]

I am aware that you recently left a war in which you were outgunned & outnumbered. I'm guessing that's why your alliance is not in the best shape for fighting. I am also aware that you all are taking one for the team, by volunteering to soak nukes & make staggers, seeing as you can't do a whole lot else. I find that commitment to teamwork admirable & worthy of respect; you appear to be damn fine allies. However, you all aren't really doing anything to us. Thus my reaction to otherwise fair terms.

Should we war again I hope that it's when both of us are having more favorable circumstances. You guys have a lot of heart; whether fighting with you or against you, I bet it would be a good fight.

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Kryievla' date='17 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1266368316' post='2186591']
I am aware that you recently left a war in which you were outgunned & outnumbered. I'm guessing that's why your alliance is not in the best shape for fighting. I am also aware that you all are taking one for the team, by volunteering to soak nukes & make staggers, seeing as you can't do a whole lot else. I find that commitment to teamwork admirable & worthy of respect; you appear to be damn fine allies. However, you all aren't really doing anything to us. Thus my reaction to otherwise fair terms.

Should we war again I hope that it's when both of us are having more favorable circumstances. You guys have a lot of heart; whether fighting with you or against you, I bet it would be a good fight.
[/quote]
I would hazard that 4 weeks back neither of our alliances suspected we would be were we sit today, here's to looking to the future.