Joint Statement

[Bob]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1266541516' post='2190756']
This is not true. It has become more and more of a norm to threaten alliances on our side with reparations and harsh terms down the line if they do not quickly surrender. Alliances that have only entered to defend their allies and which would leave the war in a heartbeat if other side genuinely wanted to end this war.

Alliances guilty of such threatening are for example MHA and FOK.
[/quote]
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81093&st=0

I don't believe FOK will be involved with that, at least not in regards to Wolfpack's allies. MHA and Sparta I believe might be the alliances you are referring to, I think they've said something about this over the course of this thread.

[Kzoppistan]

This seems like a better place to put my earlier post:


[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='18 February 2010 - 08:19 PM' timestamp='1266538799' post='2190625']
IMO, appropriate monetary reps along with a NAP between TOP/IRON and CnG would be fair. If there is any tech to be sent out, it should be as deals as 3 million for 100 tech.

I think that would satisfy most major concerns regarding security and acceptable reparations.

I've already made my opinion regarding the preemptive strike known, but I also don't feel that TOP [i]as a whole[/i] has any problem with CnG and saw them, in light of the NpO offensive, as merely strategic obstacles.

I've also made my opinion about some of the CnG participants known, as well, but I have also seen level-headedness and attempts at diplomacy, regardless of what some of the more rabid posters say.

I have faith, that if we keep the rhetoric at a minimum, that cooler heads from both parties can come to an acceptable solution.

I think that we must acknowledge that from the very beginning, with that raid by \m/, to NpO's attack, to the vehement condemnation from CnG regarding it, to the TOP/IRON offensive, most major alliances have made miscalculations of brashness.

Considering how that got us to where we are today, let's hope their aren't any more.
[/quote]

Now, I hasten to add again that this is just my personal opinion.

[itseZe]

[quote name='mitchh' date='18 February 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1266542202' post='2190791']
As has been said, these are ours to you. If you don't like them, you are free to offer up yours or posit that you aren't willing to negotiate at this point.
[/quote]
Oh we are willing to negotiate. And your gov already had talks with us and I expect them to continue. So while we do not accept your current offer, don't blame us in saying we're not willing to negotiate.

[Infidel Israeli]

[quote name='Desperado' date='18 February 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1266537113' post='2190563']
You also have already threatened reps and are planning to demand them. This is exactly what the group of people making the announcement are saying. We will not demand any reps at any time of this conflict.
[/quote]

No I haven't, and all of the people voodoo just stated did not. These exact terms were offered to VA, they declined them, then joined this list. They said the terms were unacceptable because it was one sided, they had to stay neutral for the rest of the conflict besides the wars they were already in while we did not. Yet this list is them proposing the same terms to us we presented to them. They even went as far as to find the "definition" of white peace for us to show how we were in the wrong. Yet these terms are the same. Therefor, I say VA are hypocrites. Notice as I'm not talking about any other alliance besides VA. So i don't care about the growing trend in CN.

[Saber]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='19 February 2010 - 02:20 AM' timestamp='1266542417' post='2190800']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81093&st=0

I don't believe FOK will be involved with that, at least not in regards to Wolfpack's allies. MHA and Sparta I believe might be the alliances you are referring to, I think they've said something about this over the course of this thread.
[/quote]
I did not speak out of place.

When I said FOK and MHA have threatened alliances to accept white peace now or face consequences and harsh terms later on, it is a fact. I am not referring to Wolfpack's allies.

[quote name='Infidel Israeli' date='19 February 2010 - 02:24 AM' timestamp='1266542669' post='2190807']
No I haven't, and all of the people voodoo just stated did not. These exact terms were offered to VA, they declined them, then joined this list. They said the terms were unacceptable because it was one sided, they had to stay neutral for the rest of the conflict besides the wars they were already in while we did not. Yet this list is them proposing the same terms to us we presented to them. They even went as far as to find the "definition" of white peace for us to show how we were in the wrong. Yet these terms are the same. Therefor, I say VA are hypocrites. Notice as I'm not talking about any other alliance besides VA. So i don't care about the growing trend in CN.
[/quote]
Guys get it in your head that there are hundred or so alliance in this war. TOP alone is fighting 21 or so, number of different wars between alliances is probably over a thousand. You don't need to point out your specific alliance did not threaten. However many have and it has started to happen much more often. I guess it's mob mentality.

Kudos to you for not threatening and using dirty tactics. Main reason we made this thread is to provide an avenue to ending the war for all, and to establish standards which our side will follow no matter what. Also I believe it may help improve standards in CN overall by exposing dirty tactics that are used in wars such as these.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Saber

[Saber]

My internet fails. Apologies at double post. Please delete

Edited February 19, 2010 by Saber

[Coach]

We can't stop now......I'm just getting my second wind!

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:25 AM' timestamp='1266542707' post='2190809']
Also I believe it may help improve standards in CN overall by exposing dirty tactics that are used in wars such as these.
[/quote]

Such as this thread being a PR attempt to expose 'dirty tactics' and smear your opponents? Which therefore makes this thread a dirty tactic right?

I'm not supporting bullying alliances into white peace or suffer reparations if they choose to stand by their allies, but I view this thread as a dirty tactic.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[ironchef]

[quote name='Lucius Aerilius' date='18 February 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1266540883' post='2190725']
I'm not gov., but from my view on the C&G side of things, you all will have to ask for terms before they're going to be offered. Frankly, I don't think any of us are quite done taking a healthy share of the revenge. Nothing personal.

I have a feeling the final terms are going to be a far more lenient than what most of us would like to see, but I have a great deal of confidence in our respective govt's, so it is what it is.
[/quote]

So the damage done to TOP, IRON and TORN is not enough to satisfy the hegemonic side of you. How sweet you still have that desire so deeply imbedded in your scull. Not only do you feel the need to pound or your opponents till they are dust but you need reps from them after you are done. Good show. I will keep nuking ODN just to show how much I give a !@#$ about what you think.


[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1266540964' post='2190729']
So you want to end this war, and you want White Peace.....

Well you know it isn't going to happen right? Here's why.

[s]If we were to agree to a white peace with you, that would absolve you of any wrong doing you have commited by starting this war,[/s]Here let me fix that for you
But mommy they started it!!! So why should I have to stop fighting them. But moooooom I don’t want to stop fightinggggg.

[s]Second, since declaring war on us, you have wrecked a lot of our !@#$,[/s]
[s]Do you understand yet? It's a very simple concept, but you're ignoring it and trying to spin this into us being the bad guys. So no white peace, we want our stuff back.[/s]
But mommy they broke our toyyyyyys! I want them to pay for them. Make them pay mommy. I'm going to stomp my feet till they pay for my toys!!!

[s]And what with TOP's mighty warchests, paying us what we are owed for our broken stuff shouldn't be a problem right?[/s]
But mommy they have more toys than we do so why should they not give us some!!
[/quote]

Now you know what you really sound like

[joracy]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='18 February 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1266533727' post='2190429']

Yep.

Complete success would be if every single alliance at war with us accepted at once.
[/quote]

Cool.

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1266533742' post='2190430']
I am not sure about what you are confused.

No, we are offering a solution to the global conflict. We are also promising to not demand terms or reparations regardless of potential developments on the battlefield. Making it "you are offering separate white peace individually" you are really trying to simplify the offer into something it is not.

There is a huge difference between this offer which guarantees everyone on your side will get white peace no matter what and offering separate white peace so we can gain upper hand to punish other alliances.
[/quote]

We'll just ignore that up there, but alright. I see you not demanding reps, which is fine(if I did what you did, I certainly wouldn't) and I can respect that. So, the only thing that makes it "divide and conquer " is that we intend to ask the alliances that hit us reps? But when you offer alliances a way out of the war, obviously benefiting you, it's great? I am seeing a contradiction with a document, with your name on it which is party designed to get people out of the war, and such rhetoric about divide and conquer strategies being horrible. You may have added a nice little white peace thing, but you are still attempting to do the exact same thing. You may want a global peace agreement, but asking people to talk to the alliances they are at war with, and then peacing out with them will not further that goal.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='18 February 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1266533766' post='2190432']
Well [i]duh[/i]! Of course Impero didn't want people on his side surrendering. However, the fact remains that they did, which helps out the TOP/IRON side. If TOP/IRON can get more alliances on your side to surrender, it helps them even more, and there is a clear precedent of alliances on both sides surrendering.

Saying that this is a bad move or reeks of desperation contradicts the reality that this same offer was taken up before this announcement was posted.
[/quote]

Your first two lines are great. Yes, Impero doesn't want that to happen(obviously), and yes, it benefits you greatly. I don't say how saying it's a bad move does that. It's a bad move. I think it's a bad move. I thought it was a bad move when it happened earlier, and I will think so in the future. I do not control other alliances however, nor are we a hivemind. I see no contradiction with disagreeing with another alliance.

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='18 February 2010 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1266540870' post='2190722']
Have you seen the threads of alliances on your side accepting these terms in the last couple of weeks?

Does the cognitive dissonance hurt?
[/quote]

Although I think he is mostly referring to the original combatants etc, not perhpipherary alliances that aren't heavily involved(which have been the majority of peaces on both sides), I'm still not getting why we can't disagree with people. Once again, so what if an alliance on our side of the web accepted a peace agreement I would not accept in their position? What is the big deal about people not agreeing? I don't expect your side to remain 100 percent unified in everything. It's not; obviously. And neither is ours. Why is this such an important talking point?

[Believland]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 08:32 PM' timestamp='1266543134' post='2190829']
Such as this thread being a PR attempt to expose 'dirty tactics' and smear your opponents? Which therefore makes this thread a dirty tactic right?

I'm not supporting bullying alliances into white peace or suffer reparations if they choose to stand by their allies, but I view this thread as a dirty tactic.
[/quote]
From the way you act, I'd have pinned you down for bullying people into white peace is honorable. Please, don't complain about PR threads. If you do, then it will bite you in the rear.

Helping you see,
BEazy

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='ironchef' date='19 February 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1266543201' post='2190833']
Now you know what you really sound like
[/quote]

Okay.

[quote name='Believland' date='19 February 2010 - 01:35 AM' timestamp='1266543330' post='2190839']
From the way you act, I'd have pinned you down for bullying people into white peace is honorable. Please, don't complain about PR threads. If you do, then it will bite you in the rear.

Helping you see,
BEazy
[/quote]

The way I act personally, or the way my alliance does. Could you clarify please?

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Saber]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 February 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1266543134' post='2190829']
Such as this thread being a PR attempt to expose 'dirty tactics' and smear your opponents? Which therefore makes this thread a dirty tactic right?

I'm not supporting bullying alliances into white peace or suffer reparations if they choose to stand by their allies, but I view this thread as a dirty tactic.
[/quote]
It's as much of a dirty tactic as Archons thread was. Personally I would not mind keeping all of this in private however making such a statement public puts much more strength into our word. By breaking this word we would tell whole word all our alliances are bloody liars. If we made it in private it carries much less weight.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Infidel Israeli' date='18 February 2010 - 08:24 PM' timestamp='1266542669' post='2190807']
These exact terms were offered to VA, they declined them, then joined this list.
[/quote]
Ah, you guaranteed to VA that if they accepted these terms, every single other alliance on their side would also be offered white peace?

Good to know.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1266543446' post='2190845']
It's as much of a dirty tactic as Archons thread was. Personally I would not mind keeping all of this in private however making such a statement public puts much more strength into our word. By breaking this word we would tell whole word all our alliances are bloody liars. If we made it in private it carries much less weight.
[/quote]


Surely by creating this thread you are lowering yourselves to our level then?

[jerdge]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010' post='2190756']This is not true. It has become more and more of a norm to threaten alliances on our side with reparations and harsh terms down the line if they do not quickly surrender. Alliances that have only entered to defend their allies and which would leave the war in a heartbeat if other side genuinely wanted to end this war.

Alliances guilty of such threatening are for example MHA and FOK.[/quote]
I know that I personally mentioned that those that [i]attacked[/i] us are probably going to be asked something, because of their continued aggression and especially if they continue to insist in it. I don't see anything wrong in that: our nations are going to suffer more for this war and the benefit we could get from said reparations is in perspective becoming increasingly important.
Although I am not in the MHA government, I think I can hope to correctly interpret most of the Hitchhikers' attitude when I say that we don't believe in harsh reparations as a mean to keep "down" the people we might otherwise "perceive as a threat": we simply have a culture mostly immune to paranoia (at least, this far), and there's nobody that I know of that we consider an "irreducible enemy", that we might think we need to "control".
Quite the opposite, most of us believe in the strenght of fairness and in developing friendly relationships with everybody, including and sometimes [i]especially[/i] with the people we've been fighting against.

I am in the end curious about your experience of Hitchhikers threatening "harsh" terms, would you mind to try document your assertions? I find them quite extravagant, but I might just be ignorant.

[Saber]

[quote name='joracy' date='19 February 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1266543285' post='2190835']We'll just ignore that up there, but alright. I see you not demanding reps, which is fine(if I did what you did, I certainly wouldn't) and I can respect that. So, the only thing that makes it "divide and conquer " is that we intend to ask the alliances that hit us reps? But when you offer alliances a way out of the war, obviously benefiting you, it's great? I am seeing a contradiction with a document, with your name on it which is party designed to get people out of the war, and such rhetoric about divide and conquer strategies being horrible. You may have added a nice little white peace thing, but you are still attempting to do the exact same thing. You may want a global peace agreement, but asking people to talk to the alliances they are at war with, and then peacing out with them will not further that goal.[/quote]
Our intentions are not to further our goals of pushing terms and reparations on remaining alliances. Our goal is to end this war for everyone. This is why we are giving guarantees that we will not be extracting any reps or imposing any terms. If you really want to give a bad name to our offer worse you can do is "Divide and White Peace".
[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 February 2010 - 02:40 AM' timestamp='1266543659' post='2190852']
Surely by creating this thread you are lowering yourselves to our level then?
[/quote]
I don't think it's a dirty tactic to be honest. Archon had something he needed to say on OWF and some things to clarify. We had some things to say, offer and state.

Now if you want to look at a dirty tactic it's bullying an alliance that is outnumbered by giving them ultimatums. Accept peace now or you will get harsh terms later on. It really says much about those alliances that even against the odds and threats they are still alongside us.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Saber

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266543778' post='2190857']
Our intentions are not to further our goals of pushing terms and reparations on remaining alliances. [b]Our goal is to end this war for everyone.[/b] This is why we are giving guarantees that we will not be extracting any reps or imposing any terms. If you really want to give a bad name to our offer worse you can do is "Divide and White Peace".
[/quote]


So will you admit you were wrong in 'pre-emptively' attacking C&G? I'm not going to begin with reparations because that's not my place to say how much or anything like that.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[mitchh]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266543890' post='2190861']
So will you admit you were wrong in 'pre-emptively' attacking C&G? I'm not going to begin with reparations because that's not my place to say how much or anything like that.
[/quote]
Wrong in what sense?

[Barnaby von Farter]

[quote name='ironchef' date='18 February 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1266543201' post='2190833']
So the damage done to TOP, IRON and TORN is not enough to satisfy the hegemonic side of you. How sweet you still have that desire so deeply imbedded in your scull. Not only do you feel the need to pound or your opponents till they are dust but you need reps from them after you are done. Good show. I will keep nuking ODN just to show how much I give a !@#$ about what you think.
[/quote]

Most of the representative alliances on 'your side' do not sing the same tune of defeatism as yourself. You speak of a Hegemonic side of CnG, yet there is no past behavior by CnG that would indicate that they would seek to control Planet Bob. The only puppet strings that you should be concerned about are the ones that plopped you into this war.

And regarding Tiggah...the ODN member you are at war with. I can assure you that he eagerly awaits your 1 remaining nuke. With a disturbing degree of pleasure, etc.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1266543890' post='2190861']
So will you admit you were wrong in 'pre-emptively' attacking C&G?
[/quote]

you never know but it certainly didnt turn out well and the war altogether should've ended with the \m/-Polar peace. why not? who knows...

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 01:42 AM' timestamp='1266543778' post='2190857']
I don't think it's a dirty tactic to be honest. Archon had something he needed to say on OWF and some things to clarify. We had some things to say, offer and state.

Now if you want to look at a dirty tactic it's bullying an alliance that is outnumbered by giving them ultimatums. Accept peace now or you will get harsh terms later on. It really says much about those alliances that even against the odds and threats they are still alongside us.
[/quote]

I agree, also with the white peace comment. But I get the feeling this thread was not created for the reasons which you claim it was for (Maybe now I'm being paranoid )

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='19 February 2010 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1266544031' post='2190868']
you never know but it certainly didnt turn out well and the war altogether should've ended with the \m/-Polar peace. why not? who knows...
[/quote]

That sounds more like "we were only wrong because the tables turned unexpectedly, had it all gone to plan we wouldn't need to be sorry"

Not very apologetic or sincere.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1266541895' post='2190777']
I assumed you meant overall. Overall in the war it is becoming more and more of a trend. Alliances are threatened to accept white peace or else down the line they will be required to pay serious reparations.

It's a very cheap and dirty tactic to try and weaken our side so you can have free hand with those you wish to punish. Our side has vowed not to fall to that level and all alliance fighting on the other side will receive white peace no matter circumstances.

[/quote]

I was referring specifically to the people involved in the talks with VA.

@Haf:

You know that is not what he is referring to. No one can guarantee anything for an entire side, especially if there is at least one alliance on the side missing from the list of people stating they would. He is referring to the specifics of the terms (Peace, neutral for the duration of the conflict).

[Believland]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='18 February 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1266543357' post='2190842']
The way I act personally, or the way my alliance does. Could you clarify please?
[/quote]
I said "you" I did not say "MK". ChefJoe, I love you. That's basically how I see it.

Saber,
the worst name they could give to you is honorable.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='Believland' date='19 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1266544123' post='2190874']
I said "you" I did not say "MK". ChefJoe, I love you. That's basically how I see it.

Saber,
the worst name they could give to you is honorable.
[/quote]

Well, you barely know me, and can't claim to, so I would suggest you get to know me before making such suggestions.


And so much for trying to set out an argument in a reasonable and logical manner if all you can do is create an awful ad hominem attacking me personally.