TypoNinja Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Interesting, secured no reps for their allies. Imaginative. I would not have thought of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Very good terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeDee Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 (edited) Congrats on the (surprisingly) favorable terms...not too shabby at all! Edited February 18, 2010 by LeDee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentor Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 This was a good decision, good luck recovering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bringer Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 [quote name='wolfprince' date='18 February 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1266467928' post='2188847'] 2. SLBC, FCO, iFOK and FOK will not demand reps from our allies who surrender later. [/quote] Great to see you have much faith in your Allies Onwards (hate to be this guys Ally) !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 [quote name='kriekfreak' date='17 February 2010 - 10:10 PM' timestamp='1266473437' post='2189039'] I won't speculate or trashtalk what I think they received, so I'll ask you directly. What exactly did they came in for? Also good to see peace. [/quote] Why dont you look at the second term and tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 I doubt any of us were asking for reps anyway so the term is moot really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volatile Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Thanks for well fought war Wolfpack, considerably better then other foe's in previous wars. Had a lot of fun and wish you all well. o/ SLBC, FCO, iFOK and FOK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkfox Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='17 February 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1266477558' post='2189169'] I doubt any of us were asking for reps anyway so the term is moot really. [/quote] Doesn't mean they knew that when they entered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 [quote name='The Bringer' date='18 February 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1266476226' post='2189141'] Great to see you have much faith in your Allies Onwards (hate to be this guys Ally) !! [/quote] so you are stating that because the Wolfpack looked out for their allies while surrendering, they are somehow bad allies? most alliances who surrender prior to their allies only attempt to either secure themselves white peace or the least terms/reps possible. this is the first time i have seen an alliance that surrendered ensuring that their allies do not get reps if they surrender later on. also, my respect for Stickmen/FoK have gone up because of the second term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutkase Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Nice terms Much love for Wolfpack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Congrats Wolfpack, I'd go to some neutral alliances for help getting out of bill lock though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikMark Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Honorable as always, Wolfpack. Good fight! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryievla Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Those are some pretty cool terms. Congrats on peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bringer Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1266478004' post='2189182'] so you are stating that because the Wolfpack looked out for their allies while surrendering, they are somehow bad allies? most alliances who surrender prior to their allies only attempt to either secure themselves white peace or the least terms/reps possible. this is the first time i have seen an alliance that surrendered ensuring that their allies do not get reps if they surrender later on. also, my respect for Stickmen/FoK have gone up because of the second term. [/quote] Not what i said, but just how that message looked that Wolfpack was expecting all their Allies to submit to FOK and co, my mistake for not better wording my message to make that point clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Eh, the term could have read "if" rather than "when," but it doesn't actually matter. If we never do surrender to Stickmen, it won't make any difference that Wolfpack got this term agreed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1266480597' post='2189328'] Eh, the term could have read "if" rather than "when," but it doesn't actually matter. If we never do surrender to Stickmen, it won't make any difference that Wolfpack got this term agreed to. [/quote] [quote]2. SLBC, FCO, iFOK and FOK will not demand reps from our allies who surrender later.[/quote] It doesn't read either, the wording is correct, and neutral, if their allies are not surrendering the point is moot, if their allies are surrendering, the point applies. Ninja Edit: "allies who surrender", rather than "when allies surrender", the difference is subtle, but meaningful. Edited February 18, 2010 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='18 February 2010 - 07:26 AM' timestamp='1266478004' post='2189182'] also, my respect for Stickmen/FoK have gone up because of the second term. [/quote] Reps were never an option for us. We showed the same with GGA in Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popsumpot Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 It looks my previous low opinion of Stickmen is underserving. Good show guys, and thanks Wolfpack for looking out for your allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shinpah Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Congrats to Wolfpack for getting peace, and one that contains terms on your opponents at that [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/emot-v.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langa99 Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 (edited) Good Fight (I)Fok, 'twas very enjoyable! Much Bekloppt, Moriarty36, Kel Krussna, and Rakers for the fight, you are honorable, and savage! o/ Peace. o/ The Pack. Edited February 18, 2010 by Langa99 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Good fight, see you on the flip side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphon88 Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 2nd term is pretty good, but it's only really effective if that term can be taken up more broadly. So unless you really badly didnt want to see alliances who don't take reps (Citing Arexes here as I dont know the truth of this off the top of my head), not take reps in particular from your allies, I dont see a great deal of value in that term beyond PR purposes. And I seriously doubt that 2nd term will spread enough to be effective. Nice all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 I believe their attempt was to just secure it for their allies on this front. It's written down in this surrender, but has been offered and on the table, and declined by many of the alliances already. If their allies wish to surrender, they know how to go about it already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheThirdMark Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Well we had a good time Wolfpack. 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.