Joint Statement

[WildeKaard]

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='18 February 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1266530232' post='2190298']
"Karma" was against eternal war, excessive reparations, unfair terms and curbstomps. None of those labels can be applied to the current conflict because this conflict is barely three weeks old, reparations/terms haven't been demanded/offered, and the sides, while uneven, are not [b]massively[/b] one-sided.

So please people, for the love of Admin, stop dragging out this same tired and illogical argument. It makes me feel a little bit dumber every time I read it.
[/quote]

While your opinion may be that these arguments are tired, they are not illogical by the evidence that you present. The disconnects that I see in your reasoning are as follows:

1) The core of the Karma conflict lasted a little over 3 weeks.
2) It seems to me that not offering terms to an already broken alliance could be construed as "unfair."
3) Three weeks into Karma, the strength difference was about 130 million. I believe the strength difference at this moment is around 100 million. Does that extra 30 million create the need to insert the word "massively"?

[Saber]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1266532394' post='2190390']
Also, if I could clarify, as the OP is not very clear on this, does this mean none of the alliances that have signed this will accept any peace terms that do not ensure the entire grouping gets peace?

EDIT: Looking back at Pingu's original post, those responses are entertaining xD
[/quote]
I can speak for TOP alone on this one (we didn't do an coalition wide polling on this question) that we will not accept any peace terms that do not ensure peace for everyone on our side.

TOP's goal in this conflict is to end this conflict for all our allies, friends and brothers in arms. While we are ready to face consequences of our actions, we do not think global destruction of these proportions is necessary.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Saber

[tobiash]

[quote name='Jared' date='18 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1266531990' post='2190375']
It's my view that the initial aggressors IRON/TOP/DAWN will not be granted white peace, all others will though.
I have no idea what will eventually be agreed on if anything, but I believe nothing short of some amount of reps with money/tech combination of some sort is going to be accepted.
[/quote]

This sounds reasonable, now all we need is some figures! What about IRON/TOP/DAWN paid 900 tech per C&G nation (and yes I have done non what so ever math on this).

[joracy]

[quote name='WildeKaard' date='18 February 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1266532692' post='2190396']
While your opinion may be that these arguments are tired, they are not illogical by the evidence that you present. The disconnects that I see in your reasoning are as follows:

1) The core of the Karma conflict lasted a little over 3 weeks.
2) It seems to me that not offering terms to an already broken alliance could be construed as "unfair."
3) Three weeks into Karma, the strength difference was about 130 million. I believe the strength difference at this moment is around 100 million. Does that extra 30 million create the need to insert the word "massively"?
[/quote]

1) I think you reversed that. The "core" of the Karma conflict would probably be NPO and the hegemony. The majority of the smaller peripheral alliances were out within about 3 weeks. NPO, and a few others stayed much, much longer, and many did not get white peace.
2)Are you referring to TOP et al here? They are hardly broken.
3) I don't think NS is the greatest way to determine this. TOP et al are still capable of putting up a very decent fight, and although they are losing, are quite effect at fighting.

[joracy]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 05:42 PM' timestamp='1266532935' post='2190400']
I can speak for TOP alone on this one (we didn't do an coalition wide polling on this question) that we will not accept any peace terms that do not ensure peace for everyone on our side.

TOP's goal in this conflict is to end this conflict for all our allies, friends and brothers in arms. While we are ready to face consequences of our actions, we do not think global destruction of these proportions is necessary.
[/quote]

So the actual point of this thread is to offer peace to any alliance willing to agree not to reenter, in an individual fashion?

EDIT: Wow, I managed to just double post. My apologies. I shouldn't post while in a hurry

Edited February 18, 2010 by joracy

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1266531955' post='2190373']
In our case it is attempt to end the war. Yes, in a manner that is acceptable to us but isn't that the way it should be. [/quote]

No....no not really.

[Haflinger]

[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]because of the fact that a few small alliances on his side of the war have accepted these exact terms[/i].
[/quote]
Fixed that for ya.

[quote name='SonOfHoward' date='18 February 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1266528974' post='2190252']
According to public records it can be gleaned that behind the scenes Moo was telling TORN to sharpen their blades and prepare to attack imminently.
[/quote]
Yeah... no. Your direction is reversed.

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 05:46 PM' timestamp='1266533211' post='2190409']
So the actual point of this thread is to offer peace to any alliance willing to agree not to reenter, in an individual fashion?
[/quote]
Yep.

Complete success would be if every single alliance at war with us accepted at once.

[Saber]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1266533211' post='2190409']
So the actual point of this thread is to offer peace to any alliance willing to agree not to reenter, in an individual fashion?

EDIT: Wow, I managed to just double post. My apologies. I shouldn't post while in a hurry
[/quote]
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.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1266528435' post='2190224']
It's a genuine statement and offer.

Regardless of any changes to strategic situation undersigned alliance will not enforce any terms on the opposing alliance. This means even if the war suddenly took an unexpected turn and we had 2:1 or even bigger advantage we would still accept white peace on all fronts with all alliances.

No one needs to surrender separately even on your side. Instead if you find this war unnecessary and wish it to end put pressure on alliance on your side and leaders on your side to find a way to end this war. Instead of blaming it on other side, make genuine attempts to end this madness. We have done that.
[/quote]
Madness?!

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='joracy' date='18 February 2010 - 02:56 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![/quote]
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.

[Saber]

[quote name='Viking' date='18 February 2010 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1266533619' post='2190424']
No....no not really.
[/quote]
So I'm assuming we should offer something we ourselves find unacceptable so when you accept we reject it?

We made an offer we would accept. Now if you don't like it make an offer you would accept. Then we can talk more. We have had enough of people threatening alliances on our side with harsh consequences if they don't abandon their allies right now.
[quote name='Hyperion321' date='18 February 2010 - 11:55 PM' timestamp='1266533747' post='2190431']
Madness?!
[/quote]
Poetic freedom I guess. I'd say the war could be called madness given the way it had gone on. Just remember all the things NpO did and I'm not sure it can be given another name. But we're getting off topic.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Saber

[Infidel Israeli]

It's funny VA is on this list as they declined an offer JUST like it. Everyone wants an end to this war, just everyone wants to do it with them being the victors. Hypocrites.

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1266533866' post='2190439']
So I'm assuming we should offer something we ourselves find unacceptable so when you accept we reject it?

We made an offer we would accept. Now if you don't like it make an offer you would accept. Then we can talk more. We have had enough of people threatening alliances on our side with harsh consequences if they don't abandon their allies right now.
[/quote]

What I mean is the way it should be isn't one side issuing terms that are acceptable to them, because that means by default the terms are probably unacceptable to the other side. In a war with no clear victor, this type of thinking leads to further hostilities that degenerate further from the starting point, until eventually one side wins.

To broker peace during a war that isn't decided, you have to make [i]concessions[/i] that aren't favorable to your side as a show of good faith, because every educated citizen on Planet Bob recognizes that a blanket white peace is simply a version of a cease-fire, and does little to address the problems at hand.

[Hyperion321]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1266533866' post='2190439']
So I'm assuming we should offer something we ourselves find unacceptable so when you accept we reject it?

We made an offer we would accept. Now if you don't like it make an offer you would accept. Then we can talk more. We have had enough of people threatening alliances on our side with harsh consequences if they don't abandon their allies right now.

Poetic freedom I guess. I'd say the war could be called madness given the way it had gone on. Just remember all the things NpO did and I'm not sure it can be given another name. But we're getting off topic.
[/quote]
Jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them

[Saber]

[quote name='Hyperion321' date='19 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1266534273' post='2190457']
Jokes aren't funny when you have to explain them
[/quote]
Damn you.

"This
is
Spartaaaaa!"

Was in my worfsaber mode.
[img]http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x116/alaska9808/Wrofsaber.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Viking' date='19 February 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1266534216' post='2190453']
What I mean is the way it should be isn't one side issuing terms that are acceptable to them, because that means by default the terms are probably unacceptable to the other side. In a war with no clear victor, this type of thinking leads to further hostilities that degenerate further from the starting point, until eventually one side wins.

To broker peace during a war that isn't decided, you have to make [i]concessions[/i] that aren't favorable to your side as a show of good faith, because every educated citizen on Planet Bob recognizes that a blanket white peace is simply a version of a cease-fire, and does little to address the problems at hand.
[/quote]
Perhaps it was lost in translation. What I meant we offered something we'd accept or find reasonable. I didn't think that offers should be only acceptable to one side.

In essence we are in agreement, perhaps with difference in opinion on white peace offer.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Saber

[Hyperion321]

there we go. you're excused.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Hyperion321

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1266531955' post='2190373']
I've explained this.

There is a big difference between separate white peace and global offer of white peace and promise we will not push terms on anyone in any circumstances. In your case it's a way to weaken our side so that you can more easily force down reps on those you find guilty parties. In our case it is attempt to end the war. Yes, in a manner that is acceptable to us but isn't that the way it should be.

[/quote]

One can easily say that its not a "separate white peace and global offer of white peace and promise we will not push terms on anyone in any circumstances", but rather a "way to weaken our side so that you can more easily force down reps on those you find guilty parties." for [i]your[/i] side. Conversely, it can just as logically be said that "[i]n our case it is attempt to end the war". The reasoning applies both ways, and I never said anything directly derogatory about the concept of the announcement in general. My comments were very, very narrowly tailored to the fact that including eight alliances who just that afternoon attempted to surrender is ridiculous, and I understand how the front in which they attempted to surrender to could find it insulting.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[R&R-Viking]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1266534424' post='2190463']Perhaps it was lost in translation. What I meant we offered something we'd accept or find reasonable. I didn't think that offers should be only acceptable to one side.

In essence we are in agreement, perhaps with difference in opinion on white peace offer.
[/quote]

I didn't exactly explain myself so it's not really your fault. I'm also not against white peace, just illustrating that negotiations during an ongoing war can't really progress as long as sides cling to what they want and toss the ball back saying "don't like it? well where's your idea?".

[Saber]

[quote name='Viking' date='19 February 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1266534872' post='2190482']
I didn't exactly explain myself so it's not really your fault. I'm also not against white peace, just illustrating that negotiations during an ongoing war can't really progress as long as sides cling to what they want and toss the ball back saying "don't like it? well where's your idea?".
[/quote]
I assumed "acceptable" did not mean "with no concessions". That's where we misunderstood.

[Jinnai]

[quote name='Viking' date='18 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1266534216' post='2190453']
What I mean is the way it should be isn't one side issuing terms that are acceptable to them, because that means by default the terms are probably unacceptable to the other side. In a war with no clear victor, this type of thinking leads to further hostilities that degenerate further from the starting point, until eventually one side wins.

To broker peace during a war that isn't decided, you have to make [i]concessions[/i] that aren't favorable to your side as a show of good faith, because every educated citizen on Planet Bob recognizes that a blanket white peace is simply a version of a cease-fire, and does little to address the problems at hand.
[/quote]
That thought leads to divide and conquer mentality. IE, we'll get WP to alliance X so you'll leave allowing us to put more preasure on alliance Y. This is what we are forestalling. We are also saying, in a binding way, that should the tables turn and we would be in the superior position (unlikely but still within the realm of possibility) we will not break our word and demand something more than what is here, which includes not stalling.

If alliances on the other side don't like the idea that alliance X would be getting off with WP and thinks they should be punished they should submit their demands. This means if C&G has demands they want from TOP and doesn't think we should get out with WP then submit a counter-proposal and know that we will view this, and proposals to our allies, in a context of ending the war as a whole, not peacing out alliances invidiously so divide-and-conquer tactics are supported.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Jinnai

[Penkala]

[quote name='Alterego' date='18 February 2010 - 03:46 AM' timestamp='1266482763' post='2189406']
Good to know what you think being let off easy means. They didnt start the last war but were crushed and hit with massive reps. Going to kill them off once and for all?
[/quote]

Do you guys [i]want[/i] to have some of your own disbanded? Seriously, you keep bringing it up time and time again. I know it's hard to throw a pity party and paint us as the bad guys until we kill a few of you off, but saying "you intend to because we say so and that's just as bad so you're JUST AS BAD AS THE HEGEMONY" is ridiculous. Seriously, why do you keep bringing up terms of disbandment for your allies? Do you [i]want[/i] it to happen? That way you can rail against us for real?

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='18 February 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1266534766' post='2190480']
One can easily say that its not a "separate white peace and global offer of white peace and promise we will not push terms on anyone in any circumstances", but rather a "way to weaken our side so that you can more easily force down reps on those you find guilty parties." for [i]your[/i] side.[/quote]
No, you can't. This announcement was made precisely to combat high ignorance like yours. How, pray tell, do you figure we are out to turn the tables and claim reps, when here we have already made a lasting white peace offer? We don't operate like you.

[quote]Conversely, it can just as logically be said that "[i]n our case it is attempt to end the war". The reasoning applies both ways
[/quote]
No, it doesn't. Claiming so without justification doesn't make it so. Your side has a history of attempting to extract draconian reps, believing your white peace offers are an attempt to open the floodgates to that end if a logical conclusion.

[Penkala]

[quote]Hint: Imposing harsh reps makes people really want to come after you someday, giving white peace after a good war not so much. [/quote]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but we gave plenty of white peace deals out during Karma. The same alliances have voluntarily lined up against us again and again as war appeared likely. We would be stupid to make the same mistake again.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Saber' date='18 February 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1266531955' post='2190373']

Neither me nor Avernite had anything to do with the way the war was started. However we did have something to do with this statement. If you wish to keep blaming us that is your right, however we've called for the other side to offer alternatives if they find our current offer unacceptable.

[/quote]

As a mater of course, please assume that when I use the article 'you' if you are not the party directly responsible I am in fact referring your alliance as an entity rather than you as an individual.

You (read your alliance) made the DoW, and made no bones at all about why you were declaring (it was a refreshing amount of honesty) if you wish to now extricate yourselves from the conflict you have started you are now because of that DoW in the position of needed to convince those you are now at war with that we won't see a repeat performance the instant you believe you may obtain the upper hand in armed conflict again. Its not even about vendetta's or revenge now, you have proven to the world you'll take an opportunistic change to cripple your perceived rivals, and are not shy about preemptive strikes.

Yet you want the people you jumped to trust you not to do so again.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='18 February 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1266535590' post='2190507']
We don't operate like you.

[/quote]

Its true, did you notice how VE waited till somebody attacked our allies before jumping them?

Edited February 18, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Conversely, it can just as logically be said that "[i]n our case it is attempt to end the war". The reasoning applies both ways[/quote]
When white peace across all fronts is offered to the TOP/IRON/Polar coalition then yes it can.