Joint Statement

[joracy]

[quote name='HellAngel' date='18 February 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1266520025' post='2189994']
Thats actually exactly what i meant. "LOOK AT THOSE FOOLS OFFERING WHITE PEACE LOLOLOL"
[/quote]

I'm sorry we find this thread and attempt to get people to surrender to you incredibly hilarious.

[quote name='shahenshah' date='18 February 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1266521902' post='2190039']
Terms where you want to 'neutralize' TOP, given TOP's structure, they'd be extremely bizarre, and extremely long term. If similar situation is applied on IRON, terms worse than ~NPO's. That sums to at-least 1-2 years of Tech farming and basically nothing else. Thats just an assumption, correct me if I am wrong.
[/quote]

We have no intention of forcing you or TOP to tech farm for us for 1-2 years.

Edited February 18, 2010 by joracy

[shahenshah]

[quote name='joracy' date='19 February 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1266521944' post='2190040']
We have no intention of forcing you or TOP to tech farm for us for 1-2 years.
[/quote]
Then I dont get how you will neutralize TOP or IRON other than months/years of farming and bizarre restrictions economically or militarily. Thats more or less a line generally repeated here or there by CnG members.

[Anu Drake]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='18 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1266518205' post='2189941']
I honestly don't even want to see those who entered through any treaty at all punished. People sign oA's for a reason and you shouldn't be angry when an alliance honors said treaty out of friendship, as they are legally allowed to do as per the writing of the treaty. My distaste is towards those against CnG who entered without cause, or treaty, and no one else.
[/quote]

Very sensible and reasonable, Stumpy. Although we used an oA to enter, it was really to defend IRON, even though their attack on CnG was something I hit the rafters about privately, we were standing by our friends and assisting Legion in doing the same. All the facepalms I could muster didn't stop us getting the assignment of attacking FoB (not being a member of the official NATO government made my objections moot), but we did so because it was what our role in the coalition called for. Knowing we were attacking an alliance with coalition ties to aqua, to MK and to RoK, we knew the response would be harsh. Now, we are half the size (both my nation and my alliance) and while the warring is always fun, the people we are fighting are alliances we don't have any beef with or distaste for. That's the crappy rub of coalition wars sometimes.

Anyway, good to see a rational post in this thread that had disaster written all over it from the start.

[KagetheSecond]

I hope all you people understand that we at OMFG really expect Sparta to surrender to us. Seriously.

[Kzoppistan]

Wow 18 pages now?

Who would have thought that such a simple peace offer would provoke such an outcry? Makes you wonder...


Carry on, then.

[OldSelf]

To be honest, this announcement disappoints me.

1. TFD has been offering white peace to alliances within one week of conflict.
2. TFD signed this document a while ago (I don't know the date), and I have no idea why it was delayed. It shouldn't have been posted at all if it was this late.

On related matters.

3. TPF didn't ask for reps or blood.
4. NPO's Karma reps were 5 times the reps the NPO had received total, ever. (courtesy of the NPO propaganda machine)

[Goose]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='18 February 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1266517477' post='2189918']
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.
[/quote]
You would have remained at war with CSN if you remained at war with GOD and Fark. While I've cited the counter declaration as the point at which peace was removed from the table, it wasn't the declaration itself that changed my mind about peace. It was the fact that NSO would remain at war with GOD and Fark.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Il Impero Romano still appears to be bashing this announcement [i]despite the fact that a few small alliances on his side of the war have accepted these exact terms[/i].

[Mathias]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='18 February 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1266524798' post='2190120']
Il Impero Romano still appears to be bashing this announcement [i]despite the fact that a few small alliances on his side of the war have accepted these exact terms[/i].
[/quote]

He's not bashing them, he's bashing the intention behind this announcement.

[Voodoo Nova]

I seem to recall DB4D complaining that such terms are one sided. Nice to see there is a change in heart in your beliefs.

[Saber]

Opening post was not very clear on what exactly our offer entails so I will explain it in more detail.

Almost every alliance on our side is in this war because we came to aid of one of our allies. We are here and we are fighting for their and our right to [b]achieve peace[/b]. This statement and offer in it is our attempt at ending this war. [b]It is not an attempt to isolate and weaken other side so we can curbstomp them.[/b] It is not a plea to get us white peace. I know that my alliance is willing to fight on indefinitely if we must, and I know there are others too. This is an offer of ending this war that started in a manner that is so convoluted that even 3 weeks into it, all of us here are still running around in circles.

[b]It needs to be emphasized. This is not an attempt to get a few alliances out of the war so we can gain an advantage. It is not an attempt to push down harsher terms on your allies even if the situation completely reverted and we achieved a 2:1 advantage. This is a genuine offer of peace, which will remain open throughout the conflict and which bounds all of our alliances to NOT push down terms on opposing alliances in any circumstances.[/b]

Essentially it's a statement of: "Whatever happens, we'll give everyone on your side white peace, no matter what. We are here to defend our allies but have no further agenda".

I have to also address accusations that our side was offered these kind of terms and rejected them. Yes, some alliances were offered separate white peace. But this is not nearly the same. [b]Huge difference is that our offer has assurances that we will not push down terms on any of opposing alliance regardless of circumstances [/b](this includes NO STALLING on our side in granting peace when requested). So, please stop accusing alliances of not abandoning their allies with no guarantees for rest of us. It is not proper.

I also must mention that some of these separate white peace offers have become dirty. Alliances are being offered terms and threatened that if they do not take them immediately they will receive harsh terms down the line. Such tactics are classic divide and conquer tactics where the aim is to break us up and then handle us in parts. Pushing down harsh terms when you outnumber someone 10:1 is much easier than when it's only 2:1.

We refuse to stoop down to that level, and we will keep our word. There is a way to end this war. Now it's your turn. If you wish to end this conflict as we do, contact us and we can try working something out. If you find our offer unacceptable contact us and offer your alternative for ending the whole war. We are open to suggestions. We have no interest in prolonging this war longer than necessary to achieve peace.

But please stop with trying to break us up so you can enforce harsh terms on those that are left remaining. We do not appreciate such tactics.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Mathias' date='18 February 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1266525016' post='2190124']
He's not bashing them, he's bashing the intention behind this announcement.
[/quote]

He's bashing making a public statement so that people are held accountable to their word? There's been a lot of hyperbole flying around these forums as to what C&G will or will not accept as terms, as well as TOP/IRON saying that they never intended anything other than white peace even if they were rolling right now. This cuts through the clutter for at least one side and nails it down. If anyone wants out, these are the terms, there will be no adjustments for past crimes, or changes based on how they entered the war. It would be nice if the bereaved victims in this war would make their position officially known as well as opposed to having their membership come out and float trial balloons testing public opinion and then hiding behind your free speech ideals. Rather than putting the effort into a justification post, Archon should lay out the official terms from that side of the fence and negotiations can begin.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1266525324' post='2190129']
Opening post was not very clear on what exactly our offer entails so I will explain it in more detail.

Almost every alliance on our side is in this war because we came to aid of one of our allies. We are here and we are fighting for their and our right to [b]achieve peace[/b]. This statement and offer in it is our attempt at ending this war. [b]It is not an attempt to isolate and weaken other side so we can curbstomp them.[/b] It is not a plea to get us white peace. I know that my alliance is willing to fight on indefinitely if we must, and I know there are others too. This is an offer of ending this war that started in a manner that is so convoluted that even 3 weeks into it, all of us here are still running around in circles.

[b]It needs to be emphasized. This is not an attempt to get a few alliances out of the war so we can gain an advantage. It is not an attempt to push down harsher terms on your allies even if the situation completely reverted and we achieved a 2:1 advantage. This is a genuine offer of peace, which will remain open throughout the conflict and which bounds all of our alliances to NOT push down terms on opposing alliances in any circumstances.[/b]

Essentially it's a statement of: "Whatever happens, we'll give everyone on your side white peace, no matter what. We are here to defend our allies but have no further agenda".

I have to also address accusations that our side was offered these kind of terms and rejected them. Yes, some alliances were offered separate white peace. But this is not nearly the same. [b]Huge difference is that our offer has assurances that we will not push down terms on any of opposing alliance regardless of circumstances [/b](this includes NO STALLING on our side in granting peace when requested). So, please stop accusing alliances of not abandoning their allies with no guarantees for rest of us. It is not proper.

I also must mention that some of these separate white peace offers have become dirty. Alliances are being offered terms and threatened that if they do not take them immediately they will receive harsh terms down the line. Such tactics are classic divide and conquer tactics where the aim is to break us up and then handle us in parts. Pushing down harsh terms when you outnumber someone 10:1 is much easier than when it's only 2:1.

We refuse to stoop down to that level, and we will keep our word. There is a way to end this war. Now it's your turn. If you wish to end this conflict as we do, contact us and we can try working something out. If you find our offer unacceptable contact us and offer your alternative for ending the whole war. We are open to suggestions. We have no interest in prolonging this war longer than necessary to achieve peace.

But please stop with trying to break us up so you can enforce harsh terms on those that are left remaining. We do not appreciate such tactics.
[/quote]

You have just as much power to end the war as we do. Surrender and pay the price for your actions.

[Saber]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1266525920' post='2190142']
You have just as much power to end the war as we do. Surrender and pay the price for your actions.
[/quote]
As I've said. Instead of trying to fracture us and get us to surrender one by one so you can enforce any kind of terms you wish, offer a solution to end the whole conflict.

This means everyone. Not just alliances that you find to be secondary targets and which just get in the way of your true goals.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1266526129' post='2190147']
As I've said. Instead of trying to fracture us and get us to surrender one by one so you can enforce any kind of terms you wish, offer a solution to end the whole conflict.

This means everyone. Not just alliances that you find to be secondary targets and which just get in the way of your true goals.
[/quote]
Are you, as an alliance known as TOP, still following the idea of white peace or no surrender?

Edited February 18, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[NoFish]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1266526129' post='2190147']
As I've said. Instead of trying to fracture us and get us to surrender one by one so you can enforce any kind of terms you wish, offer a solution to end the whole conflict.

This means everyone. Not just alliances that you find to be secondary targets and which just get in the way of your true goals.
[/quote]
Your "solution" being, presumably, one that lets everyone on your side off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist?

[Sandwich Controversy]

I for one would like to know what TIFDTT considers reasonable, discounting white peace because ahahaha not gonna happen

[joracy]

[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='18 February 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1266524798' post='2190120']
Il Impero Romano still appears to be bashing this announcement [i]despite the fact that a few small alliances on his side of the war have accepted these exact terms[/i].
[/quote]

Impero doesn't agree with the people on his side that took surrender terms they probably didn't have to. Our side is not a hivemind; shocking!

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1266526129' post='2190147']
As I've said. Instead of trying to fracture us and get us to surrender one by one so you can enforce any kind of terms you wish, offer a solution to end the whole conflict.

This means everyone. Not just alliances that you find to be secondary targets and which just get in the way of your true goals.
[/quote]

The thing is, nobody seems interested in surrendering until the original alliances are out of the war. When the original alliances are willing to work for an end to this war, we mind see that happen. Offering our side a blanket surrender when you are losing isn't going to accomplish any of that. Coming to the table, and negotiating terms on the other hand might just do that.

[Hydro]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266526571' post='2190162']
Impero doesn't agree with the people on his side that took surrender terms they probably didn't have to. Our side is not a hivemind; shocking!



The thing is, nobody seems interested in surrendering until the original alliances are out of the war. When the original alliances are willing to work for an end to this war, we mind see that happen. [b]Offering our side a blanket surrender when you are losing isn't going to accomplish any of that.[/b] Coming to the table, and negotiating terms on the other hand might just do that.
[/quote]

Since when is white peace the same thing as surrender? 

[Saber]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='18 February 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1266526240' post='2190151']
Are you, as an alliance known as TOP, still following the idea of white peace or no surrender?
[/quote]
Any terms or offers will be examined on case to case basis by our legislative chamber Heptagon and all our members. Up until today there were no offers. Current sentiment in most of the membership is that they would prefer white peace over all other solutions however we are not refusing to seek out an end to the global conflict if it can be achieved. We are not refusing to talk about ending the global conflict. While concern for our nations is not of high consequence to average TOPer, concern for wellbeing of our allies and friends is. That is why we will discuss avenues to achieving global peace. As current Grand Chancellor I am available for discussion.

However I can tell you beyond a doubt that Heptagon nor TOP will never accept any kind of peace which does not include all alliance on our side getting peace which they are ok with.

EDIT: wrote "ever", should be "never".

Edited February 18, 2010 by Saber

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1266526869' post='2190173']
However I can tell you beyond a doubt that Heptagon nor TOP will ever accept any kind of peace which does not include all alliance on our side getting peace which they are ok with.
[/quote]
More than fair stance. Thanks for the clarification.

[Saber]

[quote name='NoFish' date='18 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1266526409' post='2190156']
Your "solution" being, presumably, one that lets everyone on your side off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist?
[/quote]
Instead of trying to divide and conquer us so that you can enforce whichever terms you wish on what you find "guilty" alliance, offer an alternative solution to the global conflict. All we've seen so far are threats, attempts to divide us and then destroy the remainder. If you find our offer unacceptable you know what the next step is. That is if you really want to end this war and not continue to push an agenda.

As I said, ball is in your court.

[Crazy Carrot]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1266527053' post='2190178']
As I said, ball is in your court.[/quote]

I have a feeling they still want to kick it around a bit. And rightly so.

[SonOfHoward]

I hope this is sincere for if it is I applaud you for taking this stance since I for one don't agree with reps period. However; if this some sort of trick for PR, or to allow you to rebuild so you can force reps back onto others in the event the tables are turned shame on you!

I encourage all leaders to take this seriously and talk it out.(Or hug it out whicever)

[img]http://images1.makefive.com/images/200840/549601ba133c661d.jpg[/img]

[Hiro Nakara]

So in this thread we have established that TOP/RON wont get white peace. That arguement aside, the posts above hit on a good point, other than something thats not going to happen ie white peace what do Top/Ron deem as acceptable terms? You must realise by now that you wont get white peace, so your either willing to fight on until you all reach ZI and your treaty partners reach decimation, Or your willing to accept terms (reps) if its the later, what is acceptable in your eyes for you to surrender?