\m/ Decree

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 01:32 AM' timestamp='1266474772' post='2189084']
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)
[/quote]

Tick come on now do you not remember the little so called tech raid on an alliance that started this whole thing off. And if you want to play by those rules then dont use it when its only conveniant apply those across the board.


***sorry about the double post figured some one would post between my bad****

Edited February 18, 2010 by Buds The Man

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='jeff744' date='18 February 2010 - 01:32 AM' timestamp='1266474767' post='2189083']
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.
[/quote]
I doubt the nation referred to is a ghost. It has existed for 91 days, and has been in Valhalla for those 91 days. It has also been aided several times, engaged in tech deals, and received packages of money, tech and soldiers. Either Valhalla treats their ghosts with the utmost care and respect or its not a ghost.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='18 February 2010 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1266474848' post='2189086']
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.
[/quote]

Key word is "Some" Bud, although it is implied that they feel they are winning the war should have no affect on whether or not you should complain about there offer. PR bonus or not this is an offer which will stand without farther notice. Complaining because they had a bad header on their contract is like saying I dislike the million dollars I won because the check was pink. Don't be to picky about things that are thrown your way when they shouldn't even have been given in the first place.

[Caliph]

[quote name='jeff744' date='17 February 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1266474767' post='2189083']
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.
[/quote]
I read the OP and it said that 1 nation was inquiring about surrender terms. 1. That is the reason for this threads existence. If nobody takes our individual surrender terms, that is fine, no harm done to have this thread. But I just don't why so many of you seem to think that laughing about us to your face here when we are offering individual surrender terms is at all beneficial to our current state of affairs? I know we are at war, but this is the first time I've seen such attempts at ridiculing an alliance's offer of individual surrender terms.

Perhaps you didn't personally try to ridicule us, but others here in this thread have.

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='17 February 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1266474848' post='2189086']
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.
[/quote]
The OP explicitly states
[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, \m/ has decided to make terms for individual surrenders available to these besieged nations. The terms are as follows;[/quote]
Perhaps this could have been reworded to "There is one individual within ..." as there is 1 person who has inquired about peace terms.

That is all this is is a response to a nation inquiring to us about our individual peace terms.

If you don't intend to take them, I don't see how openly ridiculing these terms and us is anything more than a waste of your time.

[jeff744]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1266474772' post='2189084']
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)
[/quote]
And here I was thinking this whole war is over attacking without treaties.

[Caliph]

[quote name='jeff744' date='17 February 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1266475364' post='2189108']
And here I was thinking this whole war is over attacking without treaties.
[/quote]
Well, not so much. This war is now about C&G not wanting to give TOP and friends peace this soon without them taking more damage, and about TOP and friends not wanting to discuss terms to end this war that are not a blanket white peace.

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Caliph' date='18 February 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1266475228' post='2189102']
I read the OP and it said that 1 nation was inquiring about surrender terms. 1. That is the reason for this threads existence. If nobody takes our individual surrender terms, that is fine, no harm done to have this thread. But I just don't why so many of you seem to think that laughing about us to your face here when we are offering individual surrender terms is at all beneficial to our current state of affairs? I know we are at war, but this is the first time I've seen such attempts at ridiculing an alliance's offer of individual surrender terms.

Perhaps you didn't personally try to ridicule us, but others here in this thread have.


The OP explicitly states

Perhaps this could have been reworded to "There is one individual within ..." as there is 1 person who has inquired about peace terms.

That is all this is is a response to a nation inquiring to us about our individual peace terms.

If you don't intend to take them, I don't see how openly ridiculing these terms and us is anything more than a waste of your time.
[/quote]
[quote][i]It has been brought to my attention that there are individuals within Valhalla and BAPS that are looking to surrende[/i]r[b] since their leadership believes they can fight a losing war forever[/b]. Because of this, \m/ has decided to make terms for individual surrenders available to these besieged nations. The terms are as follows;[/quote]

The italics implies a significant amount which is false we have one ghost and then Olaf who is naught more than cannon fodder who whined about fighting good riddance to bad rubish if he surrenders. I cant abide a coward. The bolded is a shot at the leadership of both alliances another cheap shot IMO. Intentional or unintentional this was poorly worded and insulting not only to many members of our alliance but to me specifically as I will always act in what is the best interest of my alliance so your OP took a shot at myself, my fellow .gov members. Sorry if you think im sensitive but it was uncalled for and cheap.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='17 February 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1266475757' post='2189126']
The italics implies a significant amount which is false we have one ghost and then Olaf who is naught more than cannon fodder who whined about fighting good riddance to bad rubish if he surrenders. I cant abide a coward. The bolded is a shot at the leadership of both alliances another cheap shot IMO. Intentional or unintentional this was poorly worded and insulting not only to many members of our alliance but to me specifically as I will always act in what is the best interest of my alliance so your OP took a shot at myself, my fellow .gov members. Sorry if you think im sensitive but it was uncalled for and cheap.
[/quote]
So if I have the opinion you are fighting a losing war and wish to offer your nations surrender terms because of that, your view is that I would then be taking a cheap shot at your alliance?

I don't see how Emporer Mark's opinion on you fighting a losing war is taking a cheap shot at you. Your members, and possibly gov, have stated on the OWF that you will fight this war as long as you have to in order to achieve your end goal. I'm not seeing how his opinion of that action is taking a cheap shot at your alliance.

Perhaps he didn't word that diplomatic enough, but the intent was not to offend Valhalla/Baps, it was to offer surrender terms that 1 nation flying the Valhalla or BAPS AA requested.

It was not our intent to offend.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1266474772' post='2189084']
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)
[/quote]
It doesnt mean you are friends. Treaties were generally an overt sign of friendship. The "new" sneaky way is to tell people who your friends are in the form of a DoW after the sides have lined up. Its a cowardly way of showing friendship, real friends dont sneak about and be secret friends they tell the world this is my friend if you attack him you will deal with me too.

[Caliph]

[quote name='Alterego' date='17 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266476764' post='2189155']
It doesnt mean you are friends. Treaties were generally an overt sign of friendship. The "new" sneaky way is to tell people who your friends are in the form of a DoW after the sides have lined up. Its a cowardly way of showing friendship, real friends dont sneak about and be secret friends they tell the world this is my friend if you attack him you will deal with me too.
[/quote]
You are correct, going to war over something someone else does doesn't mean you are friends.

But if both of them say they are friends, well I'm not sure how you can argue they are not friends. I mean nobody claimed Polaris and FoA were friends, yet Polaris went to war over something that happened directly to FoA.

I think going to war with someone to uphold your friendship is brave, considering how some people in this overarching war have entered without visible treaties, so you can make the argument that they don't have treaties to enter for. But friendship is really something only they can mutually agree they have. I don't see how a 3rd party can determine friendship.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Caliph' date='18 February 2010 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1266477273' post='2189163']
You are correct, going to war over something someone else does doesn't mean you are friends.

But if both of them say they are friends, well I'm not sure how you can argue they are not friends. I mean nobody claimed Polaris and FoA were friends, yet Polaris went to war over something that happened directly to FoA.

I think going to war with someone to uphold your friendship is brave, considering how some people in this overarching war have entered without visible treaties, so you can make the argument that they don't have treaties to enter for. But friendship is really something only they can mutually agree they have. I don't see how a 3rd party can determine friendship.
[/quote]
True, if people say they are friends after a war has started then no one can really question their friendship. Equally if they dont stand up for a friend they can just say they are not friends, at least with the treaty made public the party who doesnt help their friend can be unmasked as cowards. Im not saying PC would have not entered this war had FAN been taking a beating, Im just saying no one could call them on it if they didnt step up the way they can in a world where friends dont hide their friendship. But thats not why they said

[quote name='TwistedRebelDB47' date='03 February 2010 - 05:31 AM']
Thank you for all those in the community that have set the standard that we may now attack whoever we want, whenever we want, for whatever reason.[/quote]

Edited February 18, 2010 by Alterego

[Tick1]

[quote name='Alterego' date='18 February 2010 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1266476764' post='2189155']
It doesnt mean you are friends. Treaties were generally an overt sign of friendship. The "new" sneaky way is to tell people who your friends are in the form of a DoW after the sides have lined up. Its a cowardly way of showing friendship, real friends dont sneak about and be secret friends they tell the world this is my friend if you attack him you will deal with me too.
[/quote]

You completely missed the point of my argument. We are going by the new standards of planet bob rather than the old standards. Where we can do whatever we want without having treaties with the involved nations. Seeing as this standard has revised the political settings within the world. Anyhow to say that we choose the winning side of the war is to say that we weren't the one of the first alliances to march into battle. Last I checked this is my fourth week into this conflict.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='18 February 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1266474931' post='2189090']
Tick come on now do you not remember the little so called tech raid on an alliance that started this whole thing off. And if you want to play by those rules then dont use it when its only conveniant apply those across the board.


***sorry about the double post figured some one would post between my bad****
[/quote]

You really don't get the hint of sarcasm throughout my entire post there do you. Bud you and I have a long way to go if we continue this conversation, but to be honest I will do it if needed.

[quote name='jeff744' date='18 February 2010 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1266475364' post='2189108']
And here I was thinking this whole war is over attacking without treaties.
[/quote]

This war never would have happened had an alliance not declared war in the so called defense of someone that they where not affiliated with.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Tick1

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 09:34 AM' timestamp='1266503674' post='2189636']
You really don't get the hint of sarcasm throughout my entire post there do you. Bud you and I have a long way to go if we continue this conversation, but to be honest I will do it if needed.



This war never would have happened had an alliance not declared war in the so called defense of someone that they where not affiliated with.
[/quote]
meh it was late i think i get the just now but no need to continue on here im generally idle in IRC on your chan you can look me up if you wish. Cheers.

[Vinzent Zeppelin]

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='18 February 2010 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1266475757' post='2189126']
... I will always act in what is the best interest of my alliance so your OP took a shot at myself, my fellow .gov members. ...
[/quote]

Ah, but is that true? This statement has a very strong [i]realpolitik[/i] flavour, but the decisions of yourself and your cabinet -- namely, to keep waging war until your allies obtain peace, out of principle -- are idealistic. One would think that peace would be in the best interests of your alliance, unless your withdrawal would, for some reason, have a more profound and lasting negative impact on Valhalla's strength and standing than would the prolongation of this losing war.

[quote name='Alterego' date='18 February 2010 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1266476764' post='2189155']
It doesnt mean you are friends. Treaties were generally an overt sign of friendship. The "new" sneaky way is to tell people who your friends are in the form of a DoW after the sides have lined up. Its a cowardly way of showing friendship, real friends dont sneak about and be secret friends they tell the world this is my friend if you attack him you will deal with me too.
[/quote]

Alliances have always retained the sovereign right to do anything they decide through their respective governing processes, declaring war on another alliance included. The notion that alliances' sovereign actions are restricted specifically to what treaties they hold and with whom is a backwards one, born of excessive reductionism of all foreign relations between alliances to an array of acronyms. It's this same backwards paradigm that nowadays compels alliances to add "optional" clauses to their treaties -- because if it's not made explicit in the treaty, it's implicitly forbidden.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Vinzent Zeppelin

[jeff744]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 08:34 AM' timestamp='1266503674' post='2189636']
You really don't get the hint of sarcasm throughout my entire post there do you. Bud you and I have a long way to go if we continue this conversation, but to be honest I will do it if needed.



This war never would have happened had an alliance not declared war in the so called defense of someone that they where not affiliated with.
[/quote]
What? PC was not affiliated with FAN other than being friends which you have stated, FAN already had the numerical/NS/nuke/and a few others advantages over us the second we declared war.

Edited February 18, 2010 by jeff744

[Thomas Jackson]

[quote name='jeff744' date='18 February 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1266522206' post='2190043']
What? PC was not affiliated with FAN other than being friends which you have stated, FAN already had the numerical/NS/nuke/and a few others advantages over us the second we declared war.
[/quote]
I believe he could also be referring to little p declaring on \m/ "in defense" of FoA.

[Tick1]

[quote name='Thomas Jackson' date='18 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1266522376' post='2190048']
I believe he could also be referring to little p declaring on \m/ "in defense" of FoA.
[/quote]

Right on the money! I clearly can see that Jeff has not been paying attention to prior engadgements that lead up to our current war. Realizing this I feel I can also conclude that Jeff has no clue as to what his alliance is fighting for. I'm going to also conclude that any member within his alliance at his rank or below cannot have possibly been informed by their higher ranking officers. Therefor any further comment he makes shall be considered an ignorant one until he's actually done some research on our current situation.

Please Jeff, do us all a favor and make the world a brighter place.

[Jonesing]

[quote name='Caliph' date='18 February 2010 - 06:40 AM' timestamp='1266475228' post='2189102']
I read the OP and it said that 1 nation was inquiring about surrender terms. 1. That is the reason for this threads existence....[stuff snipped not relevant to my point]

The OP explicitly states
[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, \m/ has decided to make terms for individual surrenders available to these besieged nations. The terms are as follows;[/quote]
Perhaps this could have been reworded to "There is one individual within ..." as there is 1 person who has inquired about peace terms.

That is all this is is a response to a nation inquiring to us about our individual peace terms.
[/quote]
Well at least you guys have changed from your stance that this was to try and free up spots by getting ghosts to surrender back to what it expressly said in the OP, so kudos on that. However, you say you read the OP, then managed to completely misparaphrase it and then directly quote it, showing in the 1 beautiful post just how badly you guys fail at propoganda (or maybe just how far you're willing to try and make stuff up that helps with your reputation. Anyway, your 'possible rewording' would have a [u]completely[/u] different meaning and tone then what was posted. For example it would clear up the misconception that there is even a single BAPS nation seeking surrender terms.

[quote name='Caliph' date='18 February 2010 - 06:54 AM' timestamp='1266476073' post='2189136']
Perhaps he didn't word that diplomatic enough, but the intent was not to offend Valhalla/Baps, it was to offer surrender terms that 1 nation flying the Valhalla or BAPS AA requested.

It was not our intent to offend.
[/quote]
Cool, so suppose we accept that it wasn't your intention to offend when you posted it, and assuming you are able to read and now realise that in fact you [u]did[/u] offend us, why not retract or edit the OP so as this intention not to offend can be shown to be truthful?? That's assuming it still isn't your intent to offend BAPS/Valhalla, if you have decided that'd you'd rather offend us now that's fine we can move on, clarification is such a simple task and would go such a long way to bringing your stated intentions in line with your actual behaviour.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Jonesing

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='18 February 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1266518459' post='2189950']
Ah, but is that true? This statement has a very strong [i]realpolitik[/i] flavour, but the decisions of yourself and your cabinet -- namely, to keep waging war until your allies obtain peace, out of principle -- are idealistic. [b]One would think that peace would be in the best interests of your alliance, unless your withdrawal would, for some reason, have a more profound and lasting negative impact on Valhalla's strength and standing than would the prolongation of this losing war.[/b]



Alliances have always retained the sovereign right to do anything they decide through their respective governing processes, declaring war on another alliance included. The notion that alliances' sovereign actions are restricted specifically to what treaties they hold and with whom is a backwards one, born of excessive reductionism of all foreign relations between alliances to an array of acronyms. It's this same backwards paradigm that nowadays compels alliances to add "optional" clauses to their treaties -- because if it's not made explicit in the treaty, it's implicitly forbidden.
[/quote]
You say this as if you think that it is only the governments resolve to remain. We have spoken to membership and they too have voiced there wish to remain so while many sit here and judge us saying you should really do whats best for your alliance in our members eyes and our govs eyes we are and tbh if yall dont like it too bad. Were here for a reason we have a goal and we have set conditions which need to be met. None of this has occured yet so we continue. As we live in a dynamic world these conditions may change but at this point none of the conditions for our exit of this war have been met. You know where to find me Zep my door has been and always will be open to you or any nordreicher who wishes to chat. My door is always open to anyone for that matter if they wish to discuss any maters with me.

[Newhotness]

[quote name='Jonesing' date='18 February 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1266532137' post='2190382']

Cool, so suppose we accept that it wasn't your intention to offend when you posted it, and assuming you are able to read and now realise that in fact you [u]did[/u] offend us, why not retract or edit the OP so as this intention not to offend can be shown to be truthful?? That's assuming it still isn't your intent to offend BAPS/Valhalla, if you have decided that'd you'd rather offend us now that's fine we can move on, clarification is such a simple task and would go such a long way to bringing your stated intentions in line with your actual behaviour.
[/quote]
sounds like youre just nitpicking and looking for a reason to argue now

[Vesalius]

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='18 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1266518459' post='2189950']
Ah, but is that true? This statement has a very strong [i]realpolitik[/i] flavour, but the decisions of yourself and your cabinet -- namely, to keep waging war until your allies obtain peace, out of principle -- are idealistic. One would think that peace would be in the best interests of your alliance, unless your withdrawal would, for some reason, have a more profound and lasting negative impact on Valhalla's strength and standing than would the prolongation of this losing war.
[/quote]
Morale is infinitely more important then physical strength. Valhalla (the alliance as a whole, not just its government) wishes to continue to fight to honor their friends and their principles. Any alliance that can be broken by beating down its strength had no unity to begin with. Common principles and a desire to do what is best for one's alliance are the cornerstone of any decent alliance community, and rightfully take a higher place in their government's priorities.

Obviously you do not feel the same way. That does not mean they are not acting in the best interest of their alliance, that notion is foolish and ignorant.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Vesalius

[Tick1]

[quote name='Vesalius' date='19 February 2010 - 04:24 AM' timestamp='1266553462' post='2191375']
Morale is infinitely more important then physical strength. Valhalla (the alliance as a whole, not just its government) wishes to continue to fight to honor their friends and their principles. Any alliance that can be broken by beating down its strength had no unity to begin with. Common principles and a desire to do what is best for one's alliance are the cornerstone of any decent alliance community, and rightfully take a higher place in their government's priorities.

Obviously you do not feel the same way. That does not mean they are not acting in the best interest of their alliance, that notion is foolish and ignorant.
[/quote]

What good is a friend when they are dead? I mean really you need to pick when you are actually helping or when your just dooming yourself and your friend. If they where wanting to be more beneficial they should drop out while they still have quite a bit of infrastructure, but then again what would I know about helping rebuild alliances. Anyhow I think they could be more beneficial after this war is over rather than attempting to help during it. Honor or not you wouldn't stick your hand in a hot stove because your friend also did, now would you?

Edit: In all honesty I do enjoy fighting Valhalla, but I believe they really should consider this offer.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Tick1

[Lord Levistus]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1266553778' post='2191394']yadda yadda
[/quote]

So you're of the opinion that one should just bolt from a fight once it gets tough leaving friends behind.

Got it, thanks. Opinion noted.

[Vesalius]

[quote name='Tick1' date='18 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1266553778' post='2191394']
What good is a friend when they are dead? I mean really you need to pick when you are actually helping or when your just dooming yourself and your friend. If they where wanting to be more beneficial they should drop out while they still have quite a bit of infrastructure, but then again what would I know about helping rebuild alliances. Anyhow I think they could be more beneficial after this war is over rather than attempting to help during it. Honor or not you wouldn't stick your hand in a hot stove because your friend also did, now would you?

Edit: In all honesty I do enjoy fighting Valhalla, but I believe they really should consider this offer.
[/quote]
If honor were my life philosophy, then yes I would. I would also rather be allied to someone that would be willing to stick their hand in a hot stove for my honor, especially as a collective unit.