Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Let it be known that my target was the one that Surrendered. :smug:

But in all seriousness. Valhalla and BAPS, stop whining because we offered you Surrender Terms. You don't have to accept them, but it is a common courtesy to offer Surrender Terms for Individuals that don't want to fight anymore. To your credit, you've only had 1 nation surrender even when faced with considerable odds, so props to you.

I respect both of your alliances a lot, but this !@#$%*ing and whining is making me loosing respect. We know you don't like us, and we don't like you. Instead of fighting with words, fight it out in the trenches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Newhotness' date='20 February 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1266722161' post='2194475']
this announcement was fine. Just upholding the standards of Bob by posting surrender terms. it became a trainwreck when Valhalla and BAPS came through talking !@#$ in a simple INDIVIDUAL surrender terms thread
[/quote]

[quote name='Druss the Legend' date='20 February 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1266724621' post='2194511']
Let it be known that my target was the one that Surrendered. :smug:

But in all seriousness. Valhalla and BAPS, stop whining because we offered you Surrender Terms. You don't have to accept them, but it is a common courtesy to offer Surrender Terms for Individuals that don't want to fight anymore. To your credit, you've only had 1 nation surrender even when faced with considerable odds, so props to you.

I respect both of your alliances a lot, but this !@#$%*ing and whining is making me loosing respect. We know you don't like us, and we don't like you. Instead of fighting with words, fight it out in the trenches.
[/quote]

Read my earlier statement at the top of this page before further humiliating yourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='20 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1266691806' post='2193908']
10 people can form a queue and represents 20% of BAPS. It is a significant number to us.


I said when you got a surrender you came out her to gloat about it.


The 1st person to surrender to you was publicly held up here to try and embarras him and us. In turn it has made you look like heartless tyrants who humilate defeated foes as they will probably have their picture held up for all the world to see while you gloat about having a member of BAPS or Valhalla surrender. Ok, explain why the leader of your alliance posted the surrender here with this comment if it wasnt an to humilate after this thread embarassed him and his alliance?

[b]"I'd like to point out to all of you who said your members would never surrender that someone has"[/b]


The mocking tone can be seen in the context of the whole the thread. When it was admitted that BAPS & Valhalla nations requesting surrender terms werent the reason for the thread it made the whole affair look rediculious. When someone actually surrendered they werend treated with any respect like other alliances. They were produced here and in the context of the whole thread its very much an I told you so moment.


First there is no proof this thread had any impact on his surrender. He even asks him to sign up to the fourm if he isnt already signed up. Not a very convincing thing to say if you think this thread did the trick. If you think all this is worth a 1.5k then your alliance has issues.
[/quote]
Alright, now you are REALLY being silly/paranoid or trying to stir up some propaganda that doesn't mean anything. Look, it's quite obvious that most of the world isn't very fond of us. Not just BAPS, but Polar, and their friends, as well as tons of others. On top of that, we hold 3, count them, 3 treaties, and don't even have 2 million NS. We don't have the ability to be tyrannical. In fact, the last time we tried being such, we got war declared on us, or did you forget?

Now let's break down this line here: [b]"I'd like to point out to all of you who said your members would never surrender that someone has"[/b]

Note the lack of any word of emotion in that sentence. I dare you to find a single word that implies opinion. You can't. The fact of the matter is you were proven wrong. Somebody did in fact, surrender. Now you're trying to backtrack and say "Oh you're making fun of him" (even though he's arguing with Valhallan gov himself proving he'd rather us than them but whatever, he's insulted alright). We're not. We just have this thread with 14 pages that has two arguments that we tried to refute
1. That nobody would surrender
2. The terms are unjust

It is possible that #2 would effect #1. However, those saying the terms were unjust were proven wrong back in the thread when they were trying to paint us as NPO was to FAN surrendering. We're obviously going to talk to our POWs (or just POW).

So then we have #1. Well somebody surrendered. I even said back in the thread that it is more likely that nation that are not prepared will probably be those that are looking to surrender. Now Valhallans have come to this thread to mock a nation that has been with them over a year for the sake of saying that he was worthless and [i]we're[/i] the ones looking to mock somebody? If he was so goddamn useless you should have just kicked him out.

Even if \m/ were looking to mock this one member, we've done a lot less mocking of him than Valhalla itself has. Sure, that's what they're going to do to a person who surrenders, but don't try to make some double standard of class when in fact your own allies do the same to their former comrade.

And I didn't mean that this thread had impact on his surrender but rather, that this thread and the creation of terms, served their purpose with one surrender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about option number three which I pointed out earlier:

You couldn't just post terms without propaganda (intentional or unintentional) and baseless statements.

Anyway I'm finished with this thread unless I really need to post again. My post at the top of this page pretty much sums up everything from my perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' date='21 February 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1266733607' post='2194685']
How about option number three which I pointed out earlier:

You couldn't just post terms without propaganda (intentional or unintentional) and baseless statements.

Anyway I'm finished with this thread unless I really need to post again. My post at the top of this page pretty much sums up everything from my perspective.
[/quote]
Term of surrender are hardly propaganda attempts. Especially when you're \m/. Nobody likes us, and these terms won't fix that, nor will they make us look strong or otherwise.

Did you see terms for NpO nations at all? No you didn't. Why is that? Most of our members have a greater distaste for NpO than they do for Valhalla.

You're all just debating a standard that has been used since forever and has since never been refuted. It's okay. Just say this: I don't like \m/.

There is no option 3. There is no propaganda here. I know \m/ is terrible at foreign relations, but for [i]this[/i] to be considered propaganda is absurd.

EDIT: What's more absurd is arguing against an age old standard that has no problems for [i]the sake of creating propaganda [b]against[/b] us.[/i]

Edited by Earogema
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' date='21 February 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1266766135' post='2195043']
Term of surrender are hardly propaganda attempts. Especially when you're \m/. Nobody likes us, and these terms won't fix that, nor will they make us look strong or otherwise.

Did you see terms for NpO nations at all? No you didn't. Why is that? Most of our members have a greater distaste for NpO than they do for Valhalla.

You're all just debating a standard that has been used since forever and has since never been refuted. It's okay. Just say this: I don't like \m/.

There is no option 3. There is no propaganda here. I know \m/ is terrible at foreign relations, but for [i]this[/i] to be considered propaganda is absurd.
[/quote]

Did you even read the announcement? Accusing the government of one, never mind two alliances of doing something against many of their members wishes is propaganda 101. :unsure:

Although not surprising if you didn't know that since people thinking laughing at someone and whinging are the same thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Newhotness' date='20 February 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1266722161' post='2194475']
this announcement was fine. Just upholding the standards of Bob by posting surrender terms. it became a trainwreck when Valhalla and BAPS came through talking !@#$ in a simple INDIVIDUAL surrender terms thread
[/quote]

Actually it was reasonably civil until a certain member of PC showed up. The screen shot of the surrendering "accidental Valhalla member" (accidental because Olaf had pretty much stopped taking an interest in Valhalla long ago) really didn't help either however.

I have done my best to be civil in this entire thread. Bashing on \m/ is not a natural exercise for me for reasons that my fellow Valhalla members are well aware of. However, Valhalla is made up of very proud people who will not suffer attempts to to make them look foolish, or otherwise mischaracterize them or their behavior. Present company included.

Edited by ChairmanHal
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' date='21 February 2010 - 10:28 AM' timestamp='1266766135' post='2195043']
There is no option 3. There is no propaganda here. I know \m/ is terrible at foreign relations, but for [i]this[/i] to be considered propaganda is absurd.[/quote]

It's obvious. I honestly have no clue how you could miss it.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80931&view=findpost&p=2193958

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' date='21 February 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1266774737' post='2195175']
It's obvious. I honestly have no clue how you could miss it.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80931&view=findpost&p=2193958
[/quote]
Perhaps not all of your nations are up to the task of fighting this war forever? That is what the terms are for: those who are unable or unwilling need not fight if they cannot or do not wish to. One of your nations was being hammered, didn't seem to be getting aid, and surrendered because they felt like Valhalla had left them out to dry. I don't believe that's the case, as I doubt he was the highest priority to receive aid. Perhaps your core members are in this for the long haul, but not every single member of Valhalla is. Perhaps they'll take these terms, as one did. This frees up slots to further attack the members that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='21 February 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1266778387' post='2195243']
Perhaps not all of your nations are up to the task of fighting this war forever? That is what the terms are for: those who are unable or unwilling need not fight if they cannot or do not wish to. One of your nations was being hammered, didn't seem to be getting aid, and surrendered because they felt like Valhalla had left them out to dry. I don't believe that's the case, as I doubt he was the highest priority to receive aid. Perhaps your core members are in this for the long haul, but not every single member of Valhalla is. Perhaps they'll take these terms, as one did. This frees up slots to further attack the members that matter.
[/quote]

Which means of course if these 'fringe' members that you seem to be implying exist of quantities greater than one actually exist, and they care at all about the "core" members and all that the core members have done for them by welcoming them into our collective brother/sisterhood in arms, they will stay with us, even unto the bitter end. Because ultimately, we will have their back in a way that no one else will. Whether that is on the battlefield now, or after the war as we grow together again in peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='21 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1266779392' post='2195283']
Which means of course if these 'fringe' members that you seem to be implying exist of quantities greater than one actually exist, and they care at all about the "core" members and all that the core members have done for them by welcoming them into our collective brother/sisterhood in arms, they will stay with us, even unto the bitter end. Because ultimately, we will have their back in a way that no one else will. Whether that is on the battlefield now, or after the war as we grow together again in peace.
[/quote]
To be perfectly honest, I thought the most we would get is three. The one who surrendered was not the one who I thought would, but I think the one I originally thought would surrender hasn't been paying attention lately. But as fare as core members, no, I wouldn't expect any unless they were destroyed to the point of incapability, and even then surrender would be a long shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='21 February 2010 - 07:50 PM' timestamp='1266781855' post='2195347']
To be perfectly honest, I thought the most we would get is three. The one who surrendered was not the one who I thought would, but I think the one I originally thought would surrender hasn't been paying attention lately. But as fare as core members, no, I wouldn't expect any unless they were destroyed to the point of incapability, and even then surrender would be a long shot.
[/quote]

Aye but you tarred BAPS name by mentioning us, noone in BAPS would individually surrender, we at BAPS know that, and we at BAPS know noone asked for terms or mentioned wanting to surrender. Thats why we have a problem with this announcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thread is a huge LOL. Think about it:

Firstly \m/ say there are BAPS nations and Valhalla nations beating down their door to surrender. This is proved wrong causing \m/ to temporarily change their approach.
Then, \m/ say it was done to free up spots so they could declare more. \m/ are shown and admit to being rubbish fighters ATM and are no more then (LOL bad) slot fillers.
Finally, they return to their original propaganda 5 days after they post the thread when they proudly parade some infra hugging non-Valhalla nation as proof this thread has worked. Yet still refuse to correct the lies and propaganda in the OP.

1. \m/ still persist in their lies that BAPS nations were looking to Surrender, they should correct their OP or issue an apology, the same should go for Valhalla as one ghost/ crappy member does not fulfill the "individual[b]s[/b]" used in the OP.

2. \m/ seem proud of the fact that no-one likes them, it seems to be their new mantra in this thread, maybe if they re-read this thread and realised how they treat others, it might give them some clues as to why this may be the case. (Personally apart from this VERY annoying thread, I've no major feelings against or towards \m/)

3. 99.999% of BAPS and (I assume) Valhalla don't give a monkeys about being offered terms, seriously [b]we don't care[/b], we only care about the lies in the OP. #


Finally, it really is laughable you guys are trying to make out there's a shortage of Defence slots, there's LOADS available and this 1 surrender will have exactly 0 effect in reality. You guys have fought the good fight but seem to be effectively finished fighting so please, just repair the damage caused here by correcting the wrong that has been done and then begin your rebuilding.

Edited by Jonesing
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Nobody Expects' date='21 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1266782723' post='2195363']
Aye but you tarred BAPS name by mentioning us, noone in BAPS would individually surrender, we at BAPS know that, and we at BAPS know noone asked for terms or mentioned wanting to surrender. Thats why we have a problem with this announcement.
[/quote]
BAPS was mentioned in order to make it known that the terms were also offered to your nations. If you have a problem with us merely offering terms as a courtesy, then you could have collectively told our high command instead of displaying poor behavior here over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='21 February 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1266787093' post='2195448']
BAPS was mentioned in order to make it known that the terms were also offered to your nations.[/quote]
This is not true. I shall quote the OP for you.

[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. Because of this, [/quote]
As you can see you said there were nations in BAPS looking to surrender. There never were. As I highlighted previously we couldn't give a monkeys that you offered terms, lots of our opponents have too, I don't see them making a huge song and dance about it. Do you???

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='21 February 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1266787093' post='2195448']
If you have a problem with us merely offering terms as a courtesy, then you could have collectively told our high command instead of displaying poor behavior here over it.
[/quote]
As we have said we [color="#FF0000"][size="4"][u][i][b]don't [/b][/i][/u][/size][/color]have a problem with you offering terms. I think the first thing for you guys to do, is accept that, then we can hopefully begin to look at the substantive issues. Since we don't have a problem with you offering terms as a courtesy, there is no need to talk to your command about that. Instead, we are highlighting the lies and untruths being spouted by your high command through the very same venue that they chose to use, making yourself and your Alliance mates feel uncomfortable does not constitute poor behaviour, in fact it constitutes entirely appropriate behaviour, continuing and extending a falsehood on the other hand, is the height of crass behaviour.

Edited by Jonesing
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jonesing' date='21 February 2010 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1266788487' post='2195487']
This is not true. I shall quote the OP for you.


As you can see you said there were nations in BAPS looking to surrender. There never were. As I highlighted previously we couldn't give a monkeys that you offered terms, lots of our opponents have too, I don't see them making a huge song and dance about it. Do you???


As we have said we [color="#FF0000"][size="4"][u][i][b]don't [/b][/i][/u][/size][/color]have a problem with you offering terms. I think the first thing for you guys to do, is accept that, then we can hopefully begin to look at the substantive issues. Since we don't have a problem with you offering terms as a courtesy, there is no need to talk to your command about that. Instead, we are highlighting the lies and untruths being spouted by your high command through the very same venue that they chose to use, making yourself and your Alliance mates feel uncomfortable does not constitute poor behaviour, in fact it constitutes entirely appropriate behaviour, continuing and extending a falsehood on the other hand, is the height of crass behaviour.
[/quote]
This war isn't over yet, which means there have been no lies, why don't we revisit this after one of the sides surrender, K?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='21 February 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1266804952' post='2195801']
This war isn't over yet, which means there have been no lies, why don't we revisit this after one of the sides surrender, K?
[/quote]

So according to you, if I state that every member of \m/ except their high leadership wants out of this war now because they are getting sorely beat, this is not a lie?

Okay perhaps I'll start spreading the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' date='22 February 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1266814813' post='2196308']
So according to you, if I state that every member of \m/ except their high leadership wants out of this war now because they are getting sorely beat, this is not a lie?

Okay perhaps I'll start spreading the word.
[/quote]
Sorely beaten? Thanks, I was looking for a good laugh and you delivered. :lol1:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' date='22 February 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1266814813' post='2196308']
So according to you, if I state that every member of \m/ except their high leadership wants out of this war now because they are getting sorely beat, this is not a lie?

Okay perhaps I'll start spreading the word.
[/quote]
theres really nothing left to argue about, but i see youre still trying

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' date='22 February 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1266814813' post='2196308']
So according to you, if I state that every member of \m/ except their high leadership wants out of this war now because they are getting sorely beat, this is not a lie?

Okay perhaps I'll start spreading the word.
[/quote]

You should do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RePePe' date='22 February 2010 - 05:00 AM' timestamp='1266814813' post='2196308']
So according to you, if I state that every member of \m/ except their high leadership wants out of this war now because they are getting sorely beat, this is not a lie?

Okay perhaps I'll start spreading the word.
[/quote]
Either you plan on going out in a blaze of glory or eventually surrendering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Let me make this easy for you people.

1. FAN has 600 nations at the start of VietFAN 1.
2. FAN had 200 nations at the start of VietFAN 2.
3. At the end of VietFAN 2 FAN had less than 100 nations (around 70 if I remember right).
3. Vox had around 150 nations at their peak.
4. At the time Vox disbanded, around 20-30 were left.
5. GOONS had 1000+ members. They ceased to exist.

Do you see a pattern here? These are 3 alliances that hold the top three records for longest wars ever. All three of them had members surrender/inactive to death as a result of the war.

When people start to fight with no end in sight, they tire. I'm not going to say that [i]all[/i] of them tire, but a great deal do. I fought for 10 months with no end in sight, but by no means do I hate those Voxians who surrendered during the war or think them weak. Don't you get it? You have [i]no[/i] idea what eternal war is like, and thanks to FAN/Vox, you won't ever have to experience it.

But hey, keep puffing out your chests and pretending like all of your nations honestly can fight forever. A few can. Maybe even the majority. But there will be those that can't. Those that get tired of having their nations destroyed.

[quote name='MadScotsman' date='21 February 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1266768144' post='2195066']
Did you even read the announcement? Accusing the government of one, never mind two alliances of doing something against many of their members wishes is propaganda 101. :unsure:

Although not surprising if you didn't know that since people thinking laughing at someone and whinging are the same thing
[/quote]
I did.
[quote name='RePePe' date='21 February 2010 - 11:52 AM' timestamp='1266774737' post='2195175']
It's obvious. I honestly have no clue how you could miss it.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80931&view=findpost&p=2193958
[/quote]
Oh no, I saw it. It's just people taking those words out of proportion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' date='22 February 2010 - 06:19 AM' timestamp='1266819545' post='2196661']
[snipped irrelevant rubbish]
You have [i]no[/i] idea what eternal war is like, and thanks to FAN/Vox, you won't ever have to experience it.
[/quote]
I don't really know what this has to do with you lot lieing in the OP.

And for the record we do have experience of PZI, and not only did we get over it, we're here standing beside the Alliance that sentenced us to it, and we do so happily and will do so each and everytime asked. You really have no idea who you're talking to do you??

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='22 February 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1266804952' post='2195801']
This war isn't over yet, which means there have been no lies, why don't we revisit this after one of the sides surrender, K?
[/quote]
If every single nation in BAPS and Valhalla surrendered, it still won't change the lies and propaganda in the OP. You guys said there were nations in BAPS seeking surrender terms, this is simply [u][b]UNTRUE[/b][/u]. There is nothing else to argue about.

Had you guys shown a little class and just simply offered terms without the rubbish we wouldn't be here, and your lies will remain lies after the War is over, at least you guys are having your rubbish highlighted for the world to see.

BTW, there's still LOADS of defensive slots available if you guys fancy taking a few of them??

Edited by Jonesing
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='22 February 2010 - 08:39 AM' timestamp='1266827971' post='2196995']
Please keep all future false and irrelevant claims to yourself.
[/quote]
What does that even mean?

Just because people have surrendered individually in GOONS/Vox/FAN doesn't have any relevance to \m/ lieing in their OP here. BAPS had some individual surrenders during our pZI, that information is irrelevant to this discussion. Once you guys realise we don't give a monkeys that you offered terms you can address the problem with the lies and spin in the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...