Joint Statement

[HellAngel]

Jesus Christ, what happened to the time when white peace offers were welcomed by everyone? It's not like you need to take it if you still want to fight. All this bawwing in this thread is completely unnecessary.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='18 February 2010 - 11:36 AM' timestamp='1266514615' post='2189841']
Jesus Christ, what happened to the time when white peace offers were welcomed by everyone? It's not like you need to take it if you still want to fight. All this bawwing in this thread is completely unnecessary.
[/quote]
They're afraid if anyone on their side takes it, it will compromise their ability to extract more reps.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='18 February 2010 - 12:36 PM' timestamp='1266514615' post='2189841']
Jesus Christ, what happened to the time when white peace offers were welcomed by everyone? It's not like you need to take it if you still want to fight. All this bawwing in this thread is completely unnecessary.
[/quote]
Some people complain because that is the only facet of relevance they have in the Cyberverse.

[joracy]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='18 February 2010 - 11:53 AM' timestamp='1266512038' post='2189791']
I hardly agree with you. I said TOP and IRON's decision was poor. You can see it as a war of agression, personally I see it as a pre-emptive based on different circumstances. Bottom line, it doesn't matter. Alliances jumping on our side did it with full knowledge we'd be facing high odds and strong counter-attacks. [b]The reason we all did it was not because we supported a war of agression (regardless of the academic discussion of there being one or not, vide any of Bob Janova's posts) nor because we endorsed the - universally considered - poor decision of TOP and IRON doing the pre-emptive strike. The reason we all joined a losing war was because we were not going to let our friends (each one's respectively) die alone doing it[/b]. Labeling it as supporting an agressive war is blunt in all accounts.




raasaa I love you, but your reply only almost makes sense, for I was not refering to TOP & IRON, but to the reason why their allies joined them in the war. Do you somehow believe that even if Athens had not apologized, MK would have let them to die? I don't think either of us believes in that. Whether TOP or IRON are willing to apologize or pay out reparations is not my concern - I couldn't care less - and has nothing to do with the reason we are standing behind them like MK and CnG would have made in the Athens-Knights of Ni! debacle had Athens not decided to be reasonable.
[/quote]

Wanna defend your allies? Defend them. Jumping into an aggressive war through a chain of oA's to hit one of the weakest alliances is hardly doing that in.

[Jared]

While I can appreciate whatever sincerity is in this white peace offer, for those that have aggressively attacked us and our brothers who we must now defend that simply isn't possible.

[martinius the great]

Definitely, anyone who entered the war through MDPs will get white peace, for they have done nothing but honor their treaties. But those who preemptively attacked CnG must pay for it, and they can't get out of this mess by just giving the other coalition a simple message. Good luck in depleting your warchests and losing your pixels, guys.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1266513088' post='2189813']
It was perceived as such by many, and thus it was since perception is the only relevant measurement when it comes to such things. I can say I hate a certain group of individuals or whatever and think that I am just and right in saying so but if it is offensive to the hated body then to them it is a biased/racist/whatever issue.

I know what was said. The logs are not relevant to the end result however in my opinion. Just as my opinion on whether it was racist or not is irrelevant since I was not the one aggrieved.

Regardless, any alliance that escalates, on either side, must accept some portion of responsibility for the escalation. Just as you were aware before entering to defend PC that NSO would thus enter to defend Polar, you took the step anyway because you felt it was your duty to do so, but that doesn't change the realization that your action, just as mine did, led to a lot of this mess.
[/quote]
Makes perfect sense.
(We can argue about the \m/ war, but since it is offtopic and I doubt we'll find a common ground I'll leave it with this.)

Edited February 18, 2010 by Tromp

[Lusitan]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1266514867' post='2189853']
Wanna defend your allies? Defend them. Jumping into an aggressive war through a chain of oA's to hit one of the weakest alliances is hardly doing that in.
[/quote]

While I understand you might not reach it, the point of [b]us[/b] chaining one optional agression was actually to defend either defend NATO - if the attacking people would split efforts to take us both - or defend someone else if alliances overdeployed with DoWs on both of us. We attacked FoB with the expectation of being counter-attacked. Regardless of what you may think, we weren't after FoB's beatdown or death.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='martinius the great' date='18 February 2010 - 05:49 PM' timestamp='1266515382' post='2189868']
Definitely, anyone who entered the war through MDPs will get white peace, for they have done nothing but honor their treaties. But those who preemptively attacked CnG must pay for it, and they can't get out of this mess by just giving the other coalition a simple message. Good luck in depleting your warchests and losing your pixels, guys.
[/quote]
Posted by a man in an alliance which entered without an MDP obligation. And you're not the only one to push a similar line despite the fact that many alliances on your side have entered with no obligation.

[Vinzent Zeppelin]

The chess equivalent of this would be offering a draw when you're a rook down -- it's desperate, futile, and more than slightly impolite. You can spite us by drawing out the game as long as time controls allow, but you will have to cede defeat eventually.

[John Shepard]

[17:58:17] <WhoMeItWhenNowCool> just edit it and say Radio Silence

Radio Silence.

Edited February 18, 2010 by John Shepard

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='18 February 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1266515944' post='2189887']
The chess equivalent of this would be offering a draw when you're a rook down -- it's desperate, futile, and more than slightly impolite. You can spite us by drawing out the game as long as time controls allow, but you will have to cede defeat eventually.
[/quote]


I think I mentioned before this comes sort of a week late. A week ago it'd have done a bit more sense for so many of us even

[nippy]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='18 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1266514615' post='2189841']
Jesus Christ, what happened to the time when white peace offers were welcomed by everyone? It's not like you need to take it if you still want to fight. All this bawwing in this thread is completely unnecessary.
[/quote]


I believe you are intentionally turning a blind eye to what is actually being said. No one is 'bawwing'. That would imply we have something to cry about. No, we're simply laughing at this silly little attempt to skirt around consequences that are due. It was a valiant effort, but intent does not equal success.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Lusitan' date='18 February 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1266512038' post='2189791']
I hardly agree with you. I said TOP and IRON's decision was poor. You can see it as a war of agression, personally I see it as a pre-emptive based on different circumstances. Bottom line, it doesn't matter. Alliances jumping on our side did it with full knowledge we'd be facing high odds and strong counter-attacks. The reason we all did it was not because we supported a war of agression (regardless of the academic discussion of there being one or not, vide any of Bob Janova's posts) nor because we endorsed the - universally considered - poor decision of TOP and IRON doing the pre-emptive strike. [b]The reason we all joined a losing war was because we were not going to let our friends (each one's respectively) die alone doing it.[/b] Labeling it as supporting an agressive war is blunt in all accounts.
[/quote]
Yah, so it all chains to the initial agressors, TOP and IRON. (Which is what I was saying.) So get them to acknowledge they made a mistake and face the consequences for it, not this "white peace or nothing" they are offering/demanding now.

[quote name='Stetson' date='18 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1266512625' post='2189807']
Again, let me reiterate that this statement is by no means intended to insult the other side but merely to provide clarity to our position. At no point in this conflict will the signatories of this statement impose reps on our opponents. Not now when it seems bleak, and not in the future, even if should Admin choose to part the Red Sea and swallow up our adversaries.
[/quote]
Ofcourse not, because you would have no right to do so.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='18 February 2010 - 06:37 PM' timestamp='1266514669' post='2189844']
They're afraid if anyone on their side takes it, it will compromise their ability to extract more reps.
[/quote]
Keep telling yourself that, lol.

I can safely say FOK isn't in this war to extract reps from anyone.

[Buffalo Niagara]

You know its really funny some of the posts in this thread talking about oA and all....

On our front, Valhalla is defending IRON who was attacked by FAN. PC, DT and NoR all jumped on Valhalla, with NoR's DoW being the ONLY one listing a valid treaty clause moving in support of DT. Those that came to support Valhalla get dogpiled on by I think a total of 14 alliances.

Yesterday in conversations with FoK and Stickmen we all agreed on one thing..we were there to defend our allies. We were offered the same options at the original post. We of course turned them down even being outnumbered basically 2:1.

Why? For the same reason many of the posters in this thread. We will not leave allies on the field.

MK has stated in his thread that peace for TOP and IRON will not be given for a long time due to the attacks on C&G. Many on our side will not leave until that happens. So as far as peace talks go...those whom want peace, approach those alliances you are at war with. Everyone else...lets continue to nuke the crap out of each other until we are all irrelevant on Bob for the next year, while those not even involved or already peace out move to the forefront of power because we are all showing that our epeens are longer than each other.

/me smiles and watches NPO take #1 in all categories...

Edited February 18, 2010 by Buffalo Niagara

[RustyNail]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='18 February 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1266511940' post='2189785']
So you wouldn't be willing to accept the offer you made in this thread then. Oh and threats of harsh reps wouldn't make us peace early with you either so... Good for you I guess.

Edit: Yes I realize Argent isn't on the list. It was a collective other side you. Probably not the best wording, admittedly.
[/quote]

We've made no threats whatsoever Delta. Argent doesn't ask for reps, nor do we pay them out. We're just here for the free popcorn, luckily there is plenty to go around.

[Tulafaras]

[quote name='Buffalo Niagara' date='18 February 2010 - 07:04 PM' timestamp='1266516267' post='2189894']
You know its really funny some of the posts in this thread talking about oA and all....

On our front, Valhalla is defending IRON who was attacked by FAN. PC, DT and NoR all jumped on Valhalla, with NoR's DoW being the ONLY one listing a valid treaty clause moving in support of DT. Those that came to support Valhalla get dogpiled on by I think a total of 14 alliances.

Yesterday in conversations with FoK and Stickmen we all agreed on one thing..we were there to defend our allies. We were offered the same options at the original post. We of course turned them down even being outnumbered basically 2:1.

Why? For the same reason many of the posters in this thread. We will not leave allies on the field.

MK has stated in his thread that peace for TOP and IRON will not be given for a long time due to the attacks on C&G. Many on our side will not leave until that happens. So as far as peace talks go...those whom want peace, approach those alliances you are at war with. Everyone else...lets continue to nuke the crap out of each other until we are all irrelevant on Bob for the next year, while those not even involved or already peace out move to the forefront of power because we are all showing that our epeens are longer than each other.

/me smiles and watches NPO take #1 in all categories...
[/quote]

You know, the way out of this war seems pretty obvious to me. Maybe you (as in alliances like you who refuse to leave the field without their allies getting peace as well, a position i find understandable and honorable) should approach the mentioned allies (TOP/IRON mostly i guess) and ask them to consider giving in. If they approached CnG with a reasonable offer (meaning a surrender instead of an insult like white peace or dust) i am sure CnG would prove themselves to be reasonable.

If they refuse to take that logical step (that being acknowledging that their declaration was a giant mistake and owning up to that mistake) then at some point you have to consider how much backing they actually deserve before you try to pursue a seperate peace.

(Note, do not get me wrong, as i said i find the attitude to support your allies to end honorable and would likely do the same, but on the same token your allies are obliged to do their utmost to get you out of the same war within a reasonable timeframe.)

[martinius the great]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1266515915' post='2189886']
Posted by a man in an alliance which entered without an MDP obligation. And you're not the only one to push a similar line despite the fact that many alliances on your side have entered with no obligation.
[/quote]
I think you've failed to read our DoW topic, but I tell you this for the 100th time: Our allies at Aircastle asked us for help and we helped them, plain and simple. Their allies were being attacked, an attack upon one of their allies is like an attack upon them (because Aircastle values treaties very highly, and they aren't treaty whores). An attack upon Aircastle means an attack upon DF. I need no more E-lawyering. In addition, I'm just speaking about TOP, IRON, etc, and not even about NSO (who entered the war through their MDP with IRON). Also, as TOP and Co. are the aggressors in this war, DF is a defender, not an attacker.

But the most important part is that the other side has created this mess, and they must stand for it and clean it up.
By the way, I don't mean to be offensive or rude to TOP members or leaders in any way. We've had an honourable fight so far, and I'd like to keep it that way, and this is simply a game. No harsh feeling, dear opponents.

[eejack]

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='18 February 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1266515944' post='2189887'] You can spite us by drawing out the game as long as time controls allow, but you will have to cede defeat eventually.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but months of pointless nuking can never be recovered. If 'they' wish to continue, then 'we' continue. The war is a quagmire at this point
and that will not change any time soon. There is some bizarre revenge thing going on and the handful of 'them' that are desperate to extract this revenge are willing to sacrifice both 'us' and their own allies to get it.

Do not doubt that the vast majority of folks want peace, on both sides. It is a small group of folks that wish this war to continue for months.

We do not wish it, but continuing welcomes us all to the global stone age.

EEjack

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='18 February 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1266506451' post='2189668']
This announcement is sad to see. There are quite a few alliances on that list who seemingly have been on the verge of accepting the same terms arrogantly offered in the OP and were about to get out of this alive (well, with at least half their strength left).

I'm not sure if this was made out of delusion or a misplaced sense of duty, but there comes a point when you really need to take a step back, look at reality, and cut your losses.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Wait, are you telling me that because some alliances signed onto this statement it would be an unforgivable crime for you to grant them white peace, which you would have done had they not signed onto this? Now I'll be the first to admit that this is a pretty silly statement, and really doesn't help these alliances at all. But by making these threats and spinning this into some sort of personal affront to you fellows, well, I can only say that you fellows are just as ridiculously inept as they are.[/color]

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='martinius the great' date='18 February 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1266517188' post='2189910']
I think you've failed to read our DoW topic, but I tell you this for the 100th time: Our allies at Aircastle asked us for help and we helped them, plain and simple. Their allies were being attacked, an attack upon one of their allies is like an attack upon them (because Aircastle values treaties very highly, and they aren't treaty whores). An attack upon Aircastle means an attack upon DF. I need no more E-lawyering. In addition, I'm just speaking about TOP, IRON, etc, and not even about NSO (who entered the war through their MDP with IRON). Also, as TOP and Co. are the aggressors in this war, DF is a defender, not an attacker.

But the most important part is that the other side has created this mess, and they must stand for it and clean it up.
By the way, I don't mean to be offensive or rude to TOP members or leaders in any way. We've had an honourable fight so far, and I'd like to keep it that way, and this is simply a game. No harsh feeling, dear opponents.
[/quote]
No. Whether you are talking about us or not you are still referencing our involvement incorrectly.

The NSO was already at war with Fark, GO, GOD and CSN [i]before[/i] IRON declared on CnG. If no counter declaration had occurred on my part we would still be at war with all these alliances with the possible exception of CSN, although that is doubtful as well. Neither GO, GOD or CSN issued a new declaration of war against NSO because they recognized the state of war as already existent. The only reason a counter was made at all was to alleviate our allies in Terra Cotta from having to remain committed to our defense in a losing battle.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='18 February 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1266515944' post='2189887']
The chess equivalent of this would be offering a draw when you're a rook down -- it's desperate, futile, and more than slightly impolite. You can spite us by drawing out the game as long as time controls allow, but you will have to cede defeat eventually.
[/quote]

Folks on the opposing side all seem to think they're FAN, with the no-surrender thing. Well, they're not. FAN faced a war of extermination and said 'no'. The folks on the losing side of this war want to believe it's a war of extermination (see: Alterego) or, more accurately, wish to convince [i]others[/i] that this is what they face when, in fact, they do not.

Eventually, they will realize that this poor attempt at spin-control is one of the most counter-productive things they could have done.

But until then, this hilarious proposal puts the 'laughter' in 'slaughter'. And for that I am grateful.

[Yggdrazil]

[quote name='Tulafaras' date='18 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1266516864' post='2189907']


(Note, do not get me wrong, as i said i find the attitude to support your allies to end honorable and would likely do the same, but on the same token your allies are obliged to do their utmost to get you out of the same war within a reasonable timeframe.)
[/quote]

If this is a reasonable response, does it not also apply to C&G also? Or if doesn't why?

[northstars]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='18 February 2010 - 12:23 PM' timestamp='1266517415' post='2189915']
[color="#0000FF"]Wait, are you telling me that because some alliances signed onto this statement it would be an unforgivable crime for you to grant them white peace,[/color]
[/quote]

It's not so much unforgivable but rather absurd, considering the situation the listed alliances brought upon themselves.

[Comrade Korey]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='18 February 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1266508195' post='2189694']
You can't have it both ways - either you're at fault for signing the MDP in the first place and then acting on it, or you should've dishonored the treaty. You're not some innocent victim if your treaty partner gets you involved in a losing war. Don't sign treaties that you wouldn't feel comfortable acting on.
[/quote]
Sorry, that's not how it works. You can't predict every single action of one of your allies, and your alliance become a joke if you just blow off treaties. The alliances that came in because of MDP's did nothing wrong, although it's still ridiculous if they signed this statement.