Jump to content

\m/ Decree


Recommended Posts

[quote name='topgun0820' date='16 February 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1266281187' post='2183750']
Lol, You do not know BAPS nor Valhalla. Good luck with this...
[/quote]


You my friend don't know half of the members within your own alliance. If you knew what they had for a warchest you'd completely understand why they want to surrender. Although maybe I'm giving you to much credit on playing it smart. Either way I'll enjoy the destruction of purple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Tick1' date='17 February 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1266427470' post='2187681']
You my friend don't know half of the members within your own alliance. If you knew what they had for a warchest you'd completely understand why they want to surrender. Although maybe I'm giving you to much credit on playing it smart. Either way I'll enjoy the destruction of purple.
[/quote]
I don't know half the members in my alliance? :o
I guarantee no one in BAPS wants to surrender. By the Way, BAPS Warchest rank in the top 10 Alliances for money per Member. Way better than the ones I have seen/faced so far. Including the almighty PC tech raiding alliance. You enjoy the destruction of the sphere, I am glad to know it takes a lot more blocs and alliances to overcome purple.

Edited by topgun0820
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='17 February 2010 - 05:24 PM' timestamp='1266427470' post='2187681']
You my friend don't know half of the members within your own alliance. If you knew what they had for a warchest you'd completely understand why they want to surrender. Although maybe I'm giving you to much credit on playing it smart. Either way I'll enjoy the destruction of purple.
[/quote]
He knows the 80% or so of active guys well enough. We monitor everyones (every active members )warchest and are very competitive. Our requirements are excessive and not easy to meet. [u]Some [/u]inactive part timers wont have the same standard as the majority but the majority have solid warchests and nice collections of war wonders. You fail at propaganda.

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='17 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1266431217' post='2187731']
He knows the 80% or so of active guys well enough. We monitor everyones (every active members )warchest and are very competitive. Our requirements are excessive and not easy to meet. [u]Some [/u]inactive part timers wont have the same standard as the majority but the majority have solid warchests and nice collections of war wonders. You fail at propaganda.
[/quote]

If the inactive part timers accept the terms, it frees up offensive slots for other purposes, which is the purpose of the terms in the first place. It's really not that complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1266435144' post='2187798']
If the inactive part timers accept the terms, it frees up offensive slots for other purposes, which is the purpose of the terms in the first place. It's really not that complicated.
[/quote]
Being inactive doesnt mean they would put themselves before the alliance and if you want to contact/target inactive people in any alliance the OWF isn't the most productive medium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='17 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266436185' post='2187829']
Being inactive doesnt mean they would put themselves before the alliance and if you want to contact/target inactive people in any alliance the OWF isn't the most productive medium.
[/quote]

This would be why we sent a PM to our war targets. It's like talking to a brick wall, I swear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 February 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1266436289' post='2187832']
This would be why we sent a PM to our war targets. It's like talking to a brick wall, I swear.
[/quote]
Did I get one? When I get up and see 30 - 50 PMs I just delete everything. I'm sure most people do the same, does the wall ever talk back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 February 2010 - 07:32 PM' timestamp='1266435144' post='2187798']
If the inactive part timers accept the terms, it frees up offensive slots for other purposes, [u][b]which is the purpose of the terms in the first place. [/b][/u]It's really not that complicated.
[/quote]
That would have been a fine reason to offer individual terms indeed, had that been your intention in the first place, unfortunately it wasn't!!!

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='16 February 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1266280994' post='2183743']
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. [size="4"][u][b]Because of this,[/b][/u][/size] \m/ has decided to make terms for individual surrenders available to these besieged nations. The terms are as follows;
[/quote]
It's you guys who are making this complicated just admit to your lies and propoganda and we can all move on... it's really really not that complicated.

Edited by Jonesing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='16 February 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1266373749' post='2186718']
Your argument has already been handled multiple times today. If you wish for me to repeat them to you, then please notify me. Maybe you'll get it on the third or fourth repeat.
[/quote]

Awwwww.... I'm so sorry if I was making you so uncomfortable that you had to wait for others to answer! Yes, I'd love to hear it from you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' date='17 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1266449799' post='2188272']
Awwwww.... I'm so sorry if I was making you so uncomfortable that you had to wait for others to answer! Yes, I'd love to hear it from you!
[/quote]

I think you're better off just sticking to fighting rather than talking. The "Hard" image you're trying to portray for TOP doesn't work so well when you open your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' date='17 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1266449799' post='2188272']
Awwwww.... I'm so sorry if I was making you so uncomfortable that you had to wait for others to answer! Yes, I'd love to hear it from you!
[/quote]

Yeah, Thomas Jackson was so intimidated by your sheer statistical superiority he had to come to me for consolation. He's better now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='wickedj' date='17 February 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1266450765' post='2188305']
*generic, unwitty, and unoriginal statement about disbandment goes here*

From what i understand about some of their opponents' warchests the \m/ PoW AA will be very popular in the coming days
[/quote]

as i believe i said earlier, why would anyone surrender to \m/ when we have several other, dare i say, [b]more[/b] respectable choices?

\m/ isn't doing damage, they're just covering the stagger because the others couldn't handle it themselves.

Might as well surrender to NPO if they're going to surrender to \m/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Levistus' date='18 February 2010 - 12:07 AM' timestamp='1266451627' post='2188337']


\m/ isn't doing damage, they're just covering the stagger because the others couldn't handle it themselves.


[/quote]


Your No.1 guy would beg to differ. Trust me, I was there..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844']
Given that you're a triumvir in the alliance that is offering the terms, can you really be depended upon to provide an impartial opinion on these terms?[/quote]
Apparently we're going to need to clearly start denoting things as sarcasm - this one flew right over your head. Also, as someone who has very clearly proven to be biased against \m/, can [i]you[/i] be trusted to give an impartial opinion on these terms? Let's keep reading...

[quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844']That said, I don't see how forcing that ridiculous soldier % term on anyone can be called fair, honorable or just, as you're almost certainly have included it only so that you will have an excuse to attack any PoWs who might mistakenly have more than 25% (perhaps you'll ZI them, as noted in term #9; that term doesn't seem so fair, honorable or just either---it certainly seems severe!). Given that one can buy his or her nation's maximum number of soldiers in all of ten seconds, what other use could that term have?[/quote]
Jumping to conclusions are we? Do you really believe we're so evil and terrible that we'd write that into the terms so that we can continue to obliterate BAPS and/or Valhalla well after this war ends? It seems as if you attacked the wrong group of alliances, for clearly we are the true hegemony.

Also, you completely and utterly failed to respond to the point brought up by Arcturus Jefferson. He references to a previous remark you made [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16985]here[/url], which I will also quote to save everyone time:

[quote name='Crymson']Hopefully the GPA learned from this situation in general. They have nothing to fear so long as they remain neutral, but if they create political incidents they'll be dealt with just as would be any other alliance.

That said, cheers and hugs to all those alliances and individuals alongside whom TOP fought in this war. Job well done.[/quote]

Really? You don't bat an eye at forcing the payment of 10,000 tech (then unprecedented I believe), a similar ratio limit on soldiers, as well as similar terms regarding tanks, cruise missiles, nuclear missiles and improvements. However, our terms lack the meddling clause, as well as the ability to re-declare war on an entire alliance should one nation break the terms. So, with the previous differences mentioned, all else that remains different is a 5% differential in the amount of soldiers per population allowed and there is absolutely [i]zero[/i] (compared to 10,000) tech reparations in these terms, they're quite similar. So why are the terms given for the Woodstock Massacre so jolly and good, while the ones we have imposed are seen as unfair and dishonorable? Should we add that 10,000 tech must be paid to TOP as part of the terms? Might that make it fair and just in your eyes?

[quote name='Crymson' date='15 February 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844']Anyway, this is all moot, because it's very unlikely that individuals of such high fighting quality as the members of BAPS (Edit: or Valhalla; sorry, I missed your name in the OP) will surrender to you.
[/quote]
It does not matter how unlikely the possibility of surrenders are, the fact remains that the possibility exists. From my current engagements, along with other reports I have heard, a good number of nations have very little to no money left. Should this be true, perhaps we will see a few surrenders. I'm not expecting scores and scores of them, as both Valhalla and BAPS have a very die-hard core of members, but I do not see it as so unreasonable to offer a way out for those who are not as gung-ho and do not have a means to continue the fight. Should they peace out, then that will open our slots to press the attack onto those who [i]do[/i] still care, and who still [i]will[/i] fight. Further destruction of those nations is what will end this conflict.

I am sure you will wave this off with another cutesy attempt at being a tough guy, but you're fooling no one but yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='17 February 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1266436510' post='2187839']
Did I get one? When I get up and see 30 - 50 PMs I just delete everything. I'm sure most people do the same, does the wall ever talk back?
[/quote]
You didn't get one because you never asked me for surrender terms. You dont seem the type to want to surrender, and given your posts here I didn't send you any surrender terms.

Would it make you feel better if I did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1266283718' post='2183844']
Given that you're a triumvir in the alliance that is offering the terms, can you really be depended upon to provide an impartial opinion on these terms?

That said, I don't see how forcing that ridiculous soldier % term on anyone can be called fair, honorable or just, as you're almost certainly have included it only so that you will have an excuse to attack any PoWs who might mistakenly have more than 25% (perhaps you'll ZI them, as noted in term #9; that term doesn't seem so fair, honorable or just either---it certainly seems severe!). Given that one can buy his or her nation's maximum number of soldiers in all of ten seconds, what other use could that term have?

Anyway, this is all moot, because it's very unlikely that individuals of such high fighting quality as the members of BAPS (Edit: or Valhalla; sorry, I missed your name in the OP) will surrender to you.
[/quote]

Now Crymson, just because their pre-emptive attempt at preventing people from complaining that peace terms where never offered wasn't as good as your pre-emptive strike on CnG doesn't mean that you should complain about their methods of doing so. Last I checked your methods didn't go over to well. (Am I right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='17 February 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1266470202' post='2188936']
Now Crymson, just because their pre-emptive attempt at preventing people from complaining that peace terms where never offered wasn't as good as your pre-emptive strike on CnG doesn't mean that you should complain about their methods of doing so. Last I checked your methods didn't go over to well. (Am I right?)
[/quote]
Last I checked PC should not be talking about attacking without a reason.

I doubt any Valhallan would surrender, and if they did it wouldn't be to \m/, there are others out there doing far more damage than place filling (though it does take some guts to go in and do that).

Edited by jeff744
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jeff744' date='17 February 2010 - 10:14 PM' timestamp='1266473670' post='2189048']
Last I checked PC should not be talking about attacking without a reason.

I doubt any Valhallan would surrender, and if they did it wouldn't be to \m/, there are others out there doing far more damage than place filling (though it does take some guts to go in and do that).
[/quote]
You're saying this like \m/ is trying to get Valhalla and BAPS to massively accept our offer of individual surrender terms.
Others are saying things like our terms are incredibly harsh or unacceptable, when it is clear to me that these are just your typical standard individual surrender terms, with the only difference in prior surrender terms from this very war is the requirement to change your alliance to "\m/ POW".

It seems we are getting a lot of flak for people who want to nit pick reasons to dislike and argue with us over. If you hate us that bad, why don't you head to our irc channel, #\m/ on SynIRc, or #Blinging13 on Coldfront, to discuss these issues with us instead of coming here and trying to belittle us or take pot shots at us. Engage us in a discussion, or a debate, and not pointless squabbles because you see the name \m/ in a thread and feel compelled to say something bad in it.

I agree that I don't think Valhalla will surrender to \m/, but the point of this is not to get Valhalla, or BAPS, to surrender. It is to provide members of Valhalla or BAPS who do not wish to fight this war a way out. If none take it, that is fine, but if we did not do this you would in the forefront besmirching us against once the war was over for not offering individual surrender terms. It appears we are badmouthed for doing something and badmouthed for not doing that same thing.

Props to the Valhalla, Baps, and other members who have understood our decision here and kept it respectful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Caliph' date='18 February 2010 - 12:27 AM' timestamp='1266474442' post='2189072']
You're saying this like \m/ is trying to get Valhalla and BAPS to massively accept our offer of individual surrender terms.
Others are saying things like our terms are incredibly harsh or unacceptable, when it is clear to me that these are just your typical standard individual surrender terms, with the only difference in prior surrender terms from this very war is the requirement to change your alliance to "\m/ POW".

It seems we are getting a lot of flak for people who want to nit pick reasons to dislike and argue with us over. If you hate us that bad, why don't you head to our irc channel, #\m/ on SynIRc, or #Blinging13 on Coldfront, to discuss these issues with us instead of coming here and trying to belittle us or take pot shots at us. Engage us in a discussion, or a debate, and not pointless squabbles because you see the name \m/ in a thread and feel compelled to say something bad in it.

I agree that I don't think Valhalla will surrender to \m/, but the point of this is not to get Valhalla, or BAPS, to surrender. It is to provide members of Valhalla or BAPS who do not wish to fight this war a way out. If none take it, that is fine, but if we did not do this you would in the forefront besmirching us against once the war was over for not offering individual surrender terms. It appears we are badmouthed for doing something and badmouthed for not doing that same thing.

Props to the Valhalla, Baps, and other members who have understood our decision here and kept it respectful.
[/quote]
I am not insulting your surrender terms, it is normal to post them, what I am stating is that I doubt any Valhallan (or BAPS) would choose to surrender to the alliance doing the least damage to them and so these are pointless but needed because people would baww about it later. The only insulting thing is that claim about members wanting to surrender which both BAPS and Valhalla have stated as not true (except for ghosts but nobody counts them) and is pure propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jeff744' date='18 February 2010 - 06:14 AM' timestamp='1266473670' post='2189048']
Last I checked PC should not be talking about attacking without a reason.

I doubt any Valhallan would surrender, and if they did it wouldn't be to \m/, there are others out there doing far more damage than place filling (though it does take some guts to go in and do that).
[/quote]

What! We attacked in the defense of our friends over at FAN. Just because we don't have it written in a treaty doesn't mean we aren't friends. (Last I checked it's the new standards here on Bob)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caliph ive explained my reasons to you for my distaste of this thread. Your op implied we were looking to get out if the op would have been simply were offering these terms to baps val if they wish to take them. Instead it starts with So i heard some Baps/ Val want to surrender. A big difference in my book. Your op is in my eyes a PR move or at the min the second is simply saying hey if you feel like it. If you posted the second Id simply have said thanks but no thanks see you on the field.

Link to comment
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...