Andover Posted February 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 currently ERA is acting as an intermediary to broker peace between WAPA , and its allies and those engaged against them and a time has been scheduled. ERA is planning on being neutral during this war and our plans for Tech trade is mainly going to be between members for now. WAPA de-masks their POW from the forum and doesnt really consider them members and I have made an effort to reach out to other WAPA POW to join my alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arani Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 /me shakes head [quote]currently ERA is acting as an intermediary to broker peace between WAPA , and its allies and those engaged against them and a time has been scheduled.[/quote] ERA has not been asked by WAPA to be a peace broker, nor has ERA been asked by any of the other involved alliances as far as I know. [quote]WAPA de-masks their POW from the forum and doesnt really consider them members and I have made an effort to reach out to other WAPA POW to join my alliance.[/quote] Demasking POW's is a standard practice in alliances, especially WAPA, since it became one of the CB's for the second shark war. We still considered you a member of the alliance until after you resigned, but seriously, do you really think that we're going to let you run for minister of defense if you surrender after 2 days of fighting? [quote]This is just me answering to the topic of the thread, just an idea for you to consider. You could consider recruiting from WAPA members that left the alliance after/during the war, like yourself. I don't know how WAPA handles surrender cases, but if some good people you know are now without and alliance you could try to get a few to join.[/quote] Most, and I would venture all current POW's from WAPA, (Andover excepted of course), are loyal members, who surrendered because they were unprepared for this war,and wanted to be more capable of rebuilding WAPA and our allies after the war. So you'll excuse me if I tell you to bug off. The above aside, good luck to you in the future ERA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cesar Julian Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) [quote name='arani' date='18 February 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1266536688' post='2190544'] Most, and I would venture all current POW's from WAPA, (Andover excepted of course), are loyal members, who surrendered because they were unprepared for this war,and wanted to be more capable of rebuilding WAPA and our allies after the war. So you'll excuse me if I tell you to bug off. [/quote] I didn't imply anything. Just gave advice based on a hypothetical situation in which I also stated I lacked knowledge of some of the specifics. I also specifically said "those nations that, like Andover, had left the alliance" meaning that they are not loyal to WAPA anymore. I'm not going to counter anything you say as you should know far more than me on the matter considering that is your alliance. I do not question the loyalty of any of your members, and as a matter of fact I myself have been witness to the amount of loyalty some of your members have. They are good people, that just happen to be on the opposing side of the war from me. Forgive me for just giving an idea, and you'll excuse me if I tell you to chill. Edit: Crappy grammar mistake. Edited February 19, 2010 by Cesar Julian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andover Posted February 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) [quote] currently ERA is acting as an intermediary to broker peace between WAPA , and its allies and those engaged against them and a time has been scheduled. [/quote] I suggested us as Intermediaries to GUN when I was talking to Zenergy and he liked that idea and we pulled together representatives from most of the alliances as well as a WAPA firm member and come to a time and place for tommorrow's meeting. No were during that convo did WAPA's firm member object to ERA being intermediary's. Edited February 19, 2010 by Andover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasuke98 Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Best of luck to you guys, maybe not the best time to be forming an alliance though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenergy Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Arani, AndyMac didn't seem to have a problem with ERA mediating talks when we were all in the same room earlier. I don't recall you being there. GUN certainly appreciates Andover and ERA mediating, as in my experience having a neutral mediator helps a great deal with advancing the pace of talks past the inevitable breakdowns in communications. Regardless of the outcome of these talks, having open communications is always a positive thing, and Andover has gained my respect for furthering that end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arani Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote]I didn't imply anything. Just gave advice based on a hypothetical situation in which I also stated I lacked knowledge of some of the specifics. I also specifically said "those nations that, like Andover, had left the alliance" meaning that they are not loyal to WAPA anymore. I'm not going to counter anything you say as you should know far more than me on the matter considering that is your alliance. I do not question the loyalty of any of your members, and as a matter of fact I myself have been witness to the amount of loyalty some of your members have. They are good people, that just happen to be on the opposing side of the war from me.[/quote] I am sorry, it seems I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought that you were suggesting that he actively recruit from WAPA POW's and even from WAPA members themselves. I see that you weren't. Andover is welcome to any former members of WAPA he can get, but don't be actively recruiting from loyal members, that's a universal no-no. [quote]AndyMac didn't seem to have a problem with ERA mediating talks when we were all in the same room earlier. I don't recall you being there. GUN certainly appreciates Andover and ERA mediating, as in my experience having a neutral mediator helps a great deal with advancing the pace of talks past the inevitable breakdowns in communications. Regardless of the outcome of these talks, having open communications is always a positive thing, and Andover has gained my respect for furthering that end.[/quote] I agree that open communication is always good, and WAPA is always glad to talk. But you might understand that sentiment in WAPA is rather biased against Andover, seeing as he abandoned WAPA in a time of need, and is now somewhat trying to stick his nose into business again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote name='zenergy' date='18 February 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1266519947' post='2189992'] Hey, he's welcome to start his new alliance after this war is over, but as of right now he's in violation of his surrender terms. We'll be happy to release him once WAPA decides to listen to reason, but until then he's ours. [/quote] Once WAPA decides to listen to reason? I'm sorry but what? WAPA should listen to reason and there should be white peace all around whilst alliances that came in with them or to defend them are still at war? Aint gonna happen. Discussions of peace will take place with ALL alliances or none, quit putting this !@#$ solely on WAPA. [quote name='Cesar Julian' date='18 February 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1266525040' post='2190125'] This is just me answering to the topic of the thread, just an idea for you to consider. You could consider recruiting from WAPA members that left the alliance after/during the war, like yourself. I don't know how WAPA handles surrender cases, but if some good people you know are now without an alliance you could try to get a few to join. [/quote] That's not the topic of the thread and recruiting PoW's who have not been released is unacceptable and will only lead to the same response from Zenergy as Andover got I expect. [quote name='Andover' date='18 February 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1266526971' post='2190176'] currently ERA is acting as an intermediary to broker peace between WAPA , and its allies and those engaged against them and a time has been scheduled. WAPA de-masks their POW from the forum and doesnt really consider them members and I have made an effort to reach out to other WAPA POW to join my alliance. [/quote] ERA wont be acting as any intermediary if I have anything to say about it. Surrendering after two days, complaining about being demasked and then trying to broker peace when you have no right to do so. I don't think so. Who doesn't? Once you surrender, you leave the alliance, the fact that you thought you could save your precious infra and run for government at the same time is hilarious. Would you have someone with access to all your forums who just ran off after two days of war? [quote name='Andover' date='19 February 2010 - 02:38 AM' timestamp='1266547115' post='2191014'] I suggested us as Intermediaries to GUN when I was talking to Zenergy and he liked that idea and we pulled together representatives from most of the alliances as well as a WAPA firm member and come to a time and place for tommorrow's meeting.[/quote] I'm fairly sure the alliances involved are competent enough to come to a resolution without you getting in the way. Quite clearly you have a motive for being there, it's not you just being a nice, uninvolved third party, more like you just wanting WAPA out so you can get this alliance going properly. [quote name='zenergy' date='19 February 2010 - 05:05 AM' timestamp='1266555936' post='2191541'] GUN certainly appreciates Andover and ERA mediating, as in my experience having a neutral mediator helps a great deal with advancing the pace of talks past the inevitable breakdowns in communications. Regardless of the outcome of these talks, having open communications is always a positive thing, and Andover has gained my respect for furthering that end. [/quote] He's not neutral and you should have recognised his motives for trying to get peace sorted as quickly as he could once you saw this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) Well, first (well actually second) time I hear about this peace meeting mediated by Andover, and TFD is also at war with WAPA. Edited February 19, 2010 by Lusitan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 We're really happy you saved your own hide, Andover, but now that we're without you, we're fine enough talking for ourselves now. no seriously, gtfo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Dumarest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Keeping this brief.... 1. Andover has no part to play in any peace negotiations. 2. We do not recognise this new alliance. [u]Signed by WAPA firm as listed below;[/u] Andymac64 Burnsey Earl Dumarest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeoLauzier Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='19 February 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1266599715' post='2192175'] Keeping this brief.... 1. Andover has no part to play in any peace negotiations. 2. We do not recognise this new alliance. [u]Signed by WAPA firm as listed below;[/u] Andymac64 Burnsey Earl Dumarest [/quote] Why wouldnt you recognise a new alliance ? Because he leaved during war ? Please develop. Edited February 19, 2010 by GeoLauzier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote]About Republic of Andover: Active Always, Got Questions? Mail me! Ive Eaten 2 nukes and Launched 2 nukes. Im not afraid to take or recieve em. [/quote] So what, two's your limit right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Dumarest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote name='GeoLauzier' date='19 February 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1266600216' post='2192190'] Why wouldnt you recognise a new alliance ? Because he leaved during war ? Please develop. [/quote] Andover is a deserter. Once he is free from GUN he may be subject to trial in our high court. He is not yet free to join any other alliance, let alone found a new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='19 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1266601164' post='2192208'] Andover is a deserter. Once he is free from GUN he may be subject to trial in our high court. He is not yet free to join any other alliance, let alone found a new one. [/quote] That's not up to you. If he joins another alliance, is accepted, and then protected by them despite your demands, what do you plan to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote name='Locke' date='19 February 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1266606193' post='2192293'] That's not up to you. If he joins another alliance, is accepted, and then protected by them despite your demands, what do you plan to do? [/quote] In that case I believe it's called diplomatic immunity, but that he probably shouldn't leave their AA without being in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmia Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 [quote name='Andover' date='18 February 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1266526971' post='2190176'] currently ERA is acting as an intermediary to broker peace between WAPA , and its allies and those engaged against them and a time has been scheduled. ERA is planning on being neutral during this war and our plans for Tech trade is mainly going to be between members for now. WAPA de-masks their POW from the forum and doesnt really consider them members and I have made an effort to reach out to other WAPA POW to join my alliance. [/quote] [quote name='Andover' date='18 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1266547115' post='2191014'] I suggested us as Intermediaries to GUN when I was talking to Zenergy and he liked that idea and we pulled together representatives from most of the alliances as well as a WAPA firm member and come to a time and place for tommorrow's meeting. No were during that convo did WAPA's firm member object to ERA being intermediary's. [/quote] Did the WAPA firm member actually TELL you this? Silence doesn't mean agreement, it means they may not be on. To assume such is foolhardy at most. I also don't see how considering you surrendered from WAPA why WAPA would want anything to do with you leading peace talks, it is a bit hypocritical. Surrender from an alliance and then try to start up peace talks? WAPA speaks for WAPA, and the communications in this whole thing were a mess. So pardon me if I listen to Dumarest in regards to what WAPA did say instead of you. Also, considering you were told not to form an alliance in this very thread while under surrender terms, this whole thing is full of irony. [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='19 February 2010 - 12:15 PM' timestamp='1266599715' post='2192175'] Keeping this brief.... 1. Andover has no part to play in any peace negotiations. 2. We do not recognise this new alliance. [u]Signed by WAPA firm as listed below;[/u] Andymac64 Burnsey Earl Dumarest [/quote] And this post makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for the clarification WAPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andover Posted February 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) [quote] Also, considering you were told not to form an alliance in this very thread while under surrender terms, this whole thing is full of irony. [/quote] WAPA didnt even know about this alliance until my DOE was made, and no were in GUN's terms was I prohibited from starting an alliance, just as long as I stayed on the GUN POW AA. The Fact that WAPA agreed to the meeting time and place is evident enough that they agreed to the talks taking place with ERA as the neutral party. Edited February 19, 2010 by Andover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zenergy Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Andover is correct. As long as he flies the GUN POW AA and complies with military requirements we have no concern over his extracurricular activities. I also think you guys need to brush up on the meaning of the word "mediate." WAPA gov has proven hard to get a hold of on IRC, and Andover offered to help get all parties in the same place so we could at least open communications. He performed that function admirably, but that doesn't mean he's running the show, merely facilitating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andover Posted February 19, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 (edited) Also ERA does not and WILL NOT recognize any attempt to put Republic of Andover on trial as being legal. Even though I cant join the ERA AA my status is currently an Unaffiliated POW, bearing no membership to any alliance but under the protection of GUN as per the POW. Once said POW terms are lifted I will be in ERA and under its protection. Edited February 19, 2010 by Andover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayzie Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 [quote name='Andover' date='19 February 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1266619692' post='2192547'] Also ERA does not and WILL NOT recognize any attempt to put Republic of Andover on trial as being legal. Even though I cant join the ERA AA my status is currently an Unaffiliated POW, bearing no membership to any alliance but under the protection of GUN as per the POW. Once said POW terms are lifted I will be in ERA and under its protection. [/quote] Also, I think you're a prick and I will show you a new era, an era of nuclear anarchy, I hope you like it. War deserter, then starting an alliance from PoW status and recruiting from PoW's, you really piss me off. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Oliver Posted February 20, 2010 Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 'Grats, Andover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andover Posted February 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2010 As GUN has released me from GUN POW , the alliance is offical for real now, and I have rejoined the ERA AA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted February 21, 2010 Report Share Posted February 21, 2010 [quote name='Earl Dumarest' date='20 February 2010 - 03:15 AM' timestamp='1266599715' post='2192175'] Keeping this brief.... 1. Andover has no part to play in any peace negotiations. 2. We do not recognise this new alliance. [u]Signed by WAPA firm as listed below;[/u] Andymac64 Burnsey Earl Dumarest [/quote] And here is the setup for a tech raid... (Step 1: Refuse to acknowledge the existence of the alliance you plan to raid) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Good Luck to ERA. 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.