Unimportant Announcement

[tamerlane]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1266865850' post='2197621']
As said, my definition and your definition of engaged would differ. And from personal choice even if I had 6 wars/member I'd still ask/give white peace regardless of what side I was on. But alas, that is me wanting things to evolve in the future and not devolve into the past.
[/quote]
Wishful thinking

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='22 February 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1266865912' post='2197624']
Wishful thinking
[/quote]

Probably, but I feel as though I've always at lived by this standard and no one can say that I haven't fought for lesser terms/reps in any wars that I have directly or indirectly been involved with, regardless of being on the winning side or not.

[D34th]

Interesting how things work.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1266865850' post='2197621']
As said, my definition and your definition of engaged would differ. And from personal choice even if I had 6 wars/member I'd still ask/give white peace regardless of what side I was on. But alas, that is me wanting things to evolve in the future and not devolve into the past.
[/quote]

I dont necessarily think your opinion is wrong. However, it is a really easy opinion for you to have, resting in an alliance that got fat off of past curbstomps, and now has massive tech reserves much larger than that of anyone you face. Having been repeatedly beaten down, many opinions on our side differ. While I generally applauf white peace, I feel the aggressors, who are wrongly aggressive, should, in part, pay for the damages that they brought on through their aggression.

[Mustakrakish II]

Good luck to everyone in building back up. Good war. Good war.

*shakes hands and high fives

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='21 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1266809279' post='2195910']
Could have been worse considering the !@#$%^&* pulled. o/ Sparta
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]You mean Sparta forging Legion signatures? Anyway, glad to see that MK condones extortion. 40,000 tech is hardly reasonable.[/color]

[FreddieMercury]

[quote name='wilhelm the demented' date='22 February 2010 - 07:36 AM' timestamp='1266824214' post='2196878']
You forgot the part where Sparta decided to go from 600 mil in reps to no reps at all. Then there was the mis-communication incident, as well as blatant disrespect from Legion Government and Membership. Then they agreed to pay us Reps and Surrender.[/quote]

The 600 mil to no reps was part of the miscommunication incident, it immediately proceeded it. You guys offered 600 mil, Legion went amongst themselves to discuss the issue and when they came back you offered white peace. Where they went back to discuss among themselves (unaware that you had taken it as a yes).

From either of those things, I do not think it is remotely reasonable to conclude that someone was testing your patience.

I have seen the evidence of disrespect from their average membership, which like I said before doesn't represent all of Legion, but do point out where Legion's government has slighted you for no reason whatsoever.



[quote]It's not like the didn't do any damage that needed repairs, right?
[/quote]

Are you meaning this as a snide "witty" comment about their fighting capability or prodding at the fact that they did damages that they should pay for?

[Cyphon88]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1266865850' post='2197621']
As said, my definition and your definition of engaged would differ. And from personal choice even if I had 6 wars/member I'd still ask/give white peace regardless of what side I was on. But alas, that is me wanting things to evolve in the future and not devolve into the past.
[/quote]

So you would mean engaged as in the principal protangonists of this war? Assuming that is the case, then thats backed up by the amount of the pixels they carry, which comes from all the previous pixelated engagements (or threats engagement) which they've successfully utilised.

I wouldn't disagree massively with that definition of engagement, nor do I disagree with your sentiment on white peace. But in the end, the engagement was present. If they political engagement of the situation was lacking, on a neo-realist interpretation, the reperations would be acceptable to increase the relativity of your increased pixel power position by choosing the winning side. Which increases the political postion subsequently.

To dismiss war engagement in favour of political engagement is a negative circle, because they are inherently linked.

But do excuse me, I'm just thinking aloud on this subject as a procrasination tactic to doing other, more worthy things.

[Gobb]

Oh what a bummer.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='22 February 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1266866281' post='2197632']
I dont necessarily think your opinion is wrong. However, it is a really easy opinion for you to have, resting in an alliance that got fat off of past curbstomps, and now has massive tech reserves much larger than that of anyone you face. Having been repeatedly beaten down, many opinions on our side differ. While I generally applauf white peace, I feel the aggressors, who are wrongly aggressive, should, in part, pay for the damages that they brought on through their aggression.
[/quote]

I have massive tech reserves because I do not allow myself to have open slots. As MK can currently testify, there was an issue of my brother paying for my tech to keep my slots full of tech even during war-time. What I consider day to day business, some consider aiding of the enemy (I do understand that and MK has been very reasonable about it and let my brother off the hook). Your side has not been repeatedly been beat down. Very few, have even had one beat down. MK and polaris being the exception as well as their allies that are with you all that fought for them in the No-CB War and the War of the Coalition respectively. This "side" on the other hand has just come off the most recent beat down/reps payment, arguably one of the largest beatings in CN history as well as a very large set of reps to be paid with it. I would know, I planned for the destruction of this side in the past, which is ironic where I find myself to be. While I can see your point of view that aggressors in a losing war should pay reps, I disagree with it. Personally I'd like to see the speed of the cyclical nature of war/peace sped up. I feel as though white peace increases this rate thus allowing more fun for all, wars not being these long drawn out things and massive war chests actually being spent. This decreases the issue of "age" in relation to an individual nation/alliance as well.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266866012' post='2197627']
Probably, but I feel as though I've always at lived by this standard and no one can say that I haven't fought for lesser terms/reps in any wars that I have directly or indirectly been involved with, regardless of being on the winning side or not.
[/quote]

Most those wars you fought for the winning side and your efforts, regardless of how much you fought against harsh terms, aided others in the passing down of harsh terms. You are not some lamb, you do have some blood on your hands so don't jump on that cross so soon.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Cyphon88' date='22 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1266869433' post='2197697']
So you would mean engaged as in the principal protangonists of this war? Assuming that is the case, then thats backed up by the amount of the pixels they carry, which comes from all the previous pixelated engagements (or threats engagement) which they've successfully utilised.

I wouldn't disagree massively with that definition of engagement, nor do I disagree with your sentiment on white peace. But in the end, the engagement was present. If they political engagement of the situation was lacking, on a neo-realist interpretation, the reperations would be acceptable to increase the relativity of your increased pixel power position by choosing the winning side. Which increases the political postion subsequently.

To dismiss war engagement in favour of political engagement is a negative circle, because they are inherently linked.

But do excuse me, I'm just thinking aloud on this subject as a procrasination tactic to doing other, more worthy things.
[/quote]

Engagement is independent of the amount of total NS brought to the table, but merely a member/wars ratio I would argue. Obviously this is flawed in part that being on a winning side usually leads to accumulated NS of larger amounts and thus less slots are available on average for individual members and alliances depending on how engaged the defensive alliance is.

In regards to your neo-realist interpretation, that was the interpretation used by ex-hegemony for years past. That by instituting monetary reparations you decrease the ability of a beaten alliance to rebuild to come back and take retribution against you while furthering your own rebuilding status to increase the gap. I most whole-heartedly disagree with this stance as we have seen how harsh reps/terms came back to bite NPO in the butt. While terms/reps such as what Gremlins gave to polaris in the WotC lead to an increased sense of well-being. Keep in mind Gremlins was the only alliance in WotC against polaris that paid for reps, and amazingly enough they had a much better relationship post-war then TOP did (as someone who has been able to see both sides, this is just my analysis of the two situations and how reps effect post-war scenarios). I would argue that NPO giving MK terms during the NO-CB built up animosity towards NPO greater then was already present. So, this neo-realist approach to reparations allows for more pent-up hatred, more animosity, and more attrocity in future wars when in my opinion war should be something we all relish, something that is fun. While I can most assuredly say that everyone was having fun in the war the first 2 weeks, people on both sides have started to tire of it. Nations are turtling (which just isn't fun to do or fun to fight), people surrender, some people may be hitting bill lock (not sure on this, we don't have this issue but it may be true for others), and the light hearted fights such as that oyababy and I had are becoming few and far between. This is why I am a proponent of speeding up the war/peace cycle. This is why I believe white peace in all scenarios barring something most heinous (see OOC attacks) is appropriate for almost any war.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1266860714' post='2197502']
You like to use the word funny....

Sadly, it was your first time running an alliance. Sadly you tried your hand at extortion.

Then I pointed this out to you, told you not to do it etc.

Did you listen? Yes. Did you feel as though I forced you to do it? Probably. Yet another micro-alliance complaining of being forced to do something right instead of something idiotic (insert MOON's desire to ask for 600 mil in reps for a 2 day non-conventional war, I believe it was ACF also wanting to go in on NPO after 17 alliances were already there, plenty of other micro alliances thinking they deserved reps for declaring war but not having any actual wars).

Fact remains, as you so aptly pointed out, I wasn't a member of your alliance, and you did not have to listen to me. Did you? Yes. Should you have done so at that point in time? Yes. As a leader of a wartime coalition, all anyone can do is offer up suggestions. Considering most people listened to me at that time and we won the war, I'd say it went over quite well. If you weren't thinking about a post-war situation, I can only lay that problem as your own.

I truly do not believe I am entitled to anything, and I'd say a lot of Bob would agree to that. I present things as I see them, and avoid the diplotalk BS. I felt the need to bring up your history here as this I can only assume is your decision to ask for reps of Legion with yet again minimal engagement, is similar to your past actions. Since there is a correlation, and trend of asking for bogus reps here I enjoy bringing it up. I chalked the first one up to you being a new alliance leader (another reason why people should stop making micro-alliances and learn how to actually run an alliance right before taking one on) and not having the experience to deal with a post-war situation. This situation here shows that it is just the nature of your self, that you are vindictive and are no better then those you fought during Karma at your allies behest.

If people dislike me, they are as always welcome to bring their issues to me and I will be glad to discuss any issues they have and at the very least, agree to disagree. I like to think I've garnered a reputation as being well-liked though of course I've stepped on the toes of people here and there. And even if I'm not well-liked I can stand to be respected. You sir, receive neither from me.

I did offer to take it up privately, Thrawn didn't contact me, and I'm too lazy to bother contacting him. At times, privacy isn't the best way to go about things. Since my attempts here are to make you see that you're acting like a rookie alliance leader (again) and at least hoping you realize this, realize the mistake you've made and at least decide to waive reps at your own personal PR bonus. If not, then at the very least, people see you as an opportunist in two conflicts now one of which you are a self-admitted rookie alliance leader that had no clue what he was doing, and then later acts the exact same way in which case we'd hope you'd seen personal growth.

Alas, it is from this podium that the future is decided. We saw it with NPO and Karma. I will of course not debase you so much to believe that you are capable of the past atrocities of NPO, but extortion was their strong suit....

As a side note, o/ MK (I have taken a lesson from you all and found that sometimes this is a lot of fun).
[/quote]

Publicly, I'll make it perfectly clear that ACF at the time wanted to enter the war, but did not want to enter onto an already toppled front on NPO, it wasn't our fight. But we were ready and willing to go to war for an ally at the drop of a hat, which we did at the time.

YES, I was a rookie at the time, but that does not give you the right to previously treat me like one, you'll find smaller alliances (we weren't micro) the best kind of friends in the game if you simply don't try and act like you're the viceroy of them. You spoke as if you spoke for us in the peace negotiations, shrugged off our speech and were a general prick all around. I recall our DoE when you came to us and were opportunist asking for tech deals and then when I said no because we're internal you proceeded to ask if I didn't like you.

This is far from a "rookie mistake" and you have utterly no clue what has gone on here. Many of the people posting are unaware of the full story. Interestingly I know a good bit, but only my part so I can only speak on that. I've made it aware I made a mistake with the whole beginning thing when I tried to patch a white peace agreement after I had lost power the previous night and did not realize that white peace was damaged goods and Legion was not accepting it. It followed into a massive miscommunication fest where I thought we had been given the go ahead by Legion and myself and my allies proceeded to post it. We retracted it after some hours of not so pleasant talk because Legion vetoed or retracted or who cares. If you noticed, they made the same mistake with SoL on our front.

You make claims we weren't involved, but we jumped head first to defend our ally, we had over 1.5 wars per nation in Asgaard and we fought the best of Legion at every turn and never backed down. We offered white peace after the most destructive portion of these wars because we felt it was fair. But never EVER tell me how to run my alliance, we'll handle our business and that is why I have an issue with you.

Once I get time to visit we'll be speaking in private because this pathetic showdown on here is ridiculous.

There will always be people in favor and against the actions of people.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='22 February 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1266871401' post='2197743']
Most those wars you fought for the winning side and your efforts, regardless of how much you fought against harsh terms, aided others in the passing down of harsh terms. You are not some lamb, you do have some blood on your hands so don't jump on that cross so soon.
[/quote]

Actually all the wars I fought were on the winning side with the exception of UJW in which case I was not actively involved in a global front, just a meat shield noob

My efforts for winning sides, as is anyone's on a winning side enables the possibility of harsh terms even if they simply fought for the side and had no active military planning. A nation is in essence an enabler. That being said it is my efforts towards eliminating those that should be judged. Am I saying that I made white peace happen all the time? No of course not, that would be naive. When I helped write up the NPO terms I absolutely realized that terms had to be agreed upon by both parties. While NPO would accept white peace, those against them most assuredly would not. At the same time I believe my lobbying towards getting rid of a few of the more harsh terms such as leaving peace mode and taking a beating for 2 cycles of war do show an effort towards better terms and allow me at the very least to have a clean conscious, knowing I did all I could do. While I know that many do not share the same morals and ethics that I abide by, I do hope that people at least see the positive aspect of offering white peace and what it allows to happen within planet Bob and how it helps us all in the future towards a more fun existence. I am by no means trying to play the sacrificial lamb. Doing that would be more along the lines of me stopping fighting completely and saying "here is my nation, I give it unto you so as the world can have peace." Though if I thought that would work and me sending out all my tech in batches of 3m/50 tech would get everyone global peace, I'd gladly pay that price.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='shilo' date='22 February 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1266835101' post='2197063']

Ok, as he is their king, that answers that...
[/quote]

Wilhelm is Sparta's king? hmm, My bad. Oh well, I suppose that answers that indeed.

[quote name='wilhelm the demented' date='22 February 2010 - 12:40 PM' timestamp='1266824409' post='2196887']
No, the reparations were re-instated because they were [u][b]rude.[/b][/u]
[/quote]

Edited February 22, 2010 by shahenshah

[tamerlane]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1266872279' post='2197767']

Though if I thought that would work and me sending out all my tech in batches of 3m/50 tech would get everyone global peace, I'd gladly pay that price.
[/quote]

Welp; Ill make sure my superiors see this and as part of your terms we can engage in the great MK-TOP tech exchange :-P

I kid...

We can agree on one thing, war [u][b]IS[/b][/u] fun!

Edited February 22, 2010 by tamerlane

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='22 February 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1266872043' post='2197761']
Publicly, I'll make it perfectly clear that ACF at the time wanted to enter the war, but did not want to enter onto an already toppled front on NPO, it wasn't our fight. But we were ready and willing to go to war for an ally at the drop of a hat, which we did at the time.

YES, I was a rookie at the time, but that does not give you the right to previously treat me like one, you'll find smaller alliances (we weren't micro) the best kind of friends in the game if you simply don't try and act like you're the viceroy of them. You spoke as if you spoke for us in the peace negotiations, shrugged off our speech and were a general prick all around. I recall our DoE when you came to us and were opportunist asking for tech deals and then when I said no because we're internal you proceeded to ask if I didn't like you.

This is far from a "rookie mistake" and you have utterly no clue what has gone on here. Many of the people posting are unaware of the full story. Interestingly I know a good bit, but only my part so I can only speak on that. I've made it aware I made a mistake with the whole beginning thing when I tried to patch a white peace agreement after I had lost power the previous night and did not realize that white peace was damaged goods and Legion was not accepting it. It followed into a massive miscommunication fest where I thought we had been given the go ahead by Legion and myself and my allies proceeded to post it. We retracted it after some hours of not so pleasant talk because Legion vetoed or retracted or who cares. If you noticed, they made the same mistake with SoL on our front.

You make claims we weren't involved, but we jumped head first to defend our ally, we had over 1.5 wars per nation in Asgaard and we fought the best of Legion at every turn and never backed down. We offered white peace after the most destructive portion of these wars because we felt it was fair. But never EVER tell me how to run my alliance, we'll handle our business and that is why I have an issue with you.

Once I get time to visit we'll be speaking in private because this pathetic showdown on here is ridiculous.

There will always be people in favor and against the actions of people.
[/quote]


Aye aye aye, you have a touch of revisionism comparable similar to Vlad.

When I told you no to NPO, you complained that you could do whatever you want, even though your allies were not requesting on the NPO front. If I recall (and I will have to find the logs to support this) you said you wanted your shot at reps too. If you act like a rookie and I have to spoon feed you why things should be a certain way, then that's how it's going to be. Add that to my stress levels at the time of trying to run at the time CN's largest war to date, and you being the largest annoyance out of everything going on, it would seem that the problem lay with you. Not even dealing with Xiphosis and his want of keeping NPO at eternal war and destroying them completely (hi Xiphosis!) compared to having to deal with your inane BS.

In regards to your DoE, you should know that I go to almost every DoE I can (as does a few other people: Ramirus) and always put our word in about buying tech and linking to our forums as it is one of the best ways to garner long term alliance tech deals. It had absolutely nothing to do with trying to mess in your affairs, simply trying to find tech for my alliance. Me asking if it was because you didn't like me was an honest question and had that been the case I would of sent someone else to ask if Asgaard would sell tech to TOP if you were not wanting to deal with me.

Amazingly, I do know what happened, and have been in constant communication with Legion the entire time. Yes Legion made a huge screw up in posting the peace but retracting it. I've made my thoughts clear on that as well as far as I can tell. Miscommunication mess-ups are most definitely a pain (I can tell you for sure considering I've watched polaris declare peace, declare they're with us, then declare they're against us all in one war, I can assuredly vouch that miscommunication sucks). And I shal continue to push for white peace even if it is offered once before. Offering it after a week of wars is a great tactic to generate some PR, and say "we offered this" but it does not excuse later actions of asking for terrible amounts of reps for a lovely 1.5 wars a nation (77 wars last time I checked). I'm not saying this is a "rookie mistake" I'm saying this is a character flaw.

As far as telling you how to run your alliance, I haven't. I'm suggesting things you, and all people on all sides can do to make this a more fun scenario instead of one of hatred and malcontent. That is what I am pointing out. I am suggesting that all that asked for reps forgo them, not just you. The fact that you had previous history of doing this just allowed me to direct it a bit more towards you, this is of course an option for all parties involved and one that I hope everyone embraces.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='22 February 2010 - 03:04 PM' timestamp='1266872688' post='2197780']
Welp; Ill make sure my superiors see this and as part of your terms we can engage in the great MK-TOP tech exchange :-P

I kid...

We can agree on one thing, war [u][b]IS[/b][/u] fun!
[/quote]

Absolutely war is fun. That is why I wish to speed the cycle of war/peace up. Make wars happen more often, but without the god awful restricting form of reparations afterwards. It is reps/terms that slow the whole cycle down.

[Cyphon88]

(sad thing is, I didn't even read your message before pressing respond, I just feel like a good old fashioned debate)

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1266871910' post='2197757']
Engagement is independent of the amount of total NS brought to the table, but merely a member/wars ratio I would argue. Obviously this is flawed in part that being on a winning side usually leads to accumulated NS of larger amounts and thus less slots are available on average for individual members and alliances depending on how engaged the defensive alliance is.
[/quote]

Is that not exactly what I just said? With Asgaard having one of the highest member/wars ratios in the war? Or am I confused, or theres some grammatical conveyance present in this that I'm missing?

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1266871910' post='2197757']
In regards to your neo-realist interpretation, that was the interpretation used by ex-hegemony for years past. That by instituting monetary reparations you decrease the ability of a beaten alliance to rebuild to come back and take retribution against you while furthering your own rebuilding status to increase the gap. I most whole-heartedly disagree with this stance as we have seen how harsh reps/terms came back to bite NPO in the butt. While terms/reps such as what Gremlins gave to polaris in the WotC lead to an increased sense of well-being. Keep in mind Gremlins was the only alliance in WotC against polaris that paid for reps, and amazingly enough they had a much better relationship post-war then TOP did (as someone who has been able to see both sides, this is just my analysis of the two situations and how reps effect post-war scenarios). I would argue that NPO giving MK terms during the NO-CB built up animosity towards NPO greater then was already present. So, this neo-realist approach to reparations allows for more pent-up hatred, more animosity, and more attrocity in future wars when in my opinion war should be something we all relish, something that is fun. While I can most assuredly say that everyone was having fun in the war the first 2 weeks, people on both sides have started to tire of it. Nations are turtling (which just isn't fun to do or fun to fight), people surrender, some people may be hitting bill lock (not sure on this, we don't have this issue but it may be true for others), and the light hearted fights such as that oyababy and I had are becoming few and far between. This is why I am a proponent of speeding up the war/peace cycle. This is why I believe white peace in all scenarios barring something most heinous (see OOC attacks) is appropriate for almost any war.
[/quote]

First to clarify, I'm absolutely no pronponent of the neo-realist intrepretation. You can see that from the OP, and from talking to most people who know me. I was proposing it as an example of the rationale that is being taken in this position by some. Alas the example I used was a little more refined, as I used a blunt political engagement dialectic, which would account for the externalities and failings of the Neo-realist position. The point is that in your inital statement you seemed to be only valuing the political element to engagement which is where this all spiralled off. (I'm not sure where I'd label my diagnostic reasoning from, a mixture of Bakunin, Proudhon, Gramsci, Marx and a few others) which then I jumped on, so to speak, not you're going back to engagement numbers. So I dont know quite where you're coming from in that particular segment of your diatribe of Lonewolfe and Asgaard.

Yeah my targets started being less banterous too. It's a sad, sad thing.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Cyphon88

[Steve Buscemi]

Sparta and allies, you've given a stubborn insulting enemy very light terms in my book. I applaud you for that. After the stunt they pulled I'm glad you were the bigger man. I though reps would be closer to 100,000 tech for what they did.

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Trinite' date='22 February 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1266864668' post='2197576']
Nope, that's not what we're telling you at all. The reasons for reps are many.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81382&st=260&p=2196415&#entry2196415
[/quote]

haha, trying to play it out as if Sparta were innocent in all of that. You guys completely $%&@ed up posting the terms without signatures from Legion. They jumped to the wrong conclusions, and you all had a nice little verbal to and fro on the forums where you both blamed each other for things that both of you were to blame for. Definitely deserving of reps. Now tell me why I should take your word above other Spartans? Even your king said it was because they were rude?[quote name='King Louis the II' date='22 February 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1266864759' post='2197579']
Try to read everything again. If you still cant get it, maybe I can try some pictures...
[/quote]
Do it. I hope your drawing skills surpass the others I've seen displayed because it might not be enough if they don't.

I know how Sparta loves a party line, but you should all have the same one.

[Ecthelion]

Well, glad to see my opponents in Legion getting peace (deserved peace, you folks were fun to talk to and fight with, cheers!), the peace talks were..interesting. Any way, good luck rebuilding mates.

Now, for the war of the OWF! Raging Ninjas fighting Raging pirates, baww brigade versus those "horrible Q-like people who took some reps *gasp* to rebuild their alliances!".

Tune in later folks, you'll see the mud start really flying!

OOC:That out of the way, thank you to all those arguing people, it proved an amusing read after work today.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Ecthelion

[Trinite]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='22 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1266875913' post='2197857']
Now tell me why I should take your word above other Spartans? Even your king said it was because they were rude?
[/quote]
Because I am better looking than other Spartans .

[Monster]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='22 February 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1266875913' post='2197857']
haha, trying to play it out as if Sparta were innocent in all of that. You guys completely $%&@ed up posting the terms without signatures from Legion. They jumped to the wrong conclusions, and you all had a nice little verbal to and fro on the forums where you both blamed each other for things that both of you were to blame for. Definitely deserving of reps. Now tell me why I should take your word above other Spartans? Even your king said it was because they were rude?
Do it. I hope your drawing skills surpass the others I've seen displayed because it might not be enough if they don't.

I know how Sparta loves a party line, but you should all have the same one.
[/quote]

To be fair, Legion was advised before any of that happened that if they did not accept white peace that there would be additional terms. Similar warnings were given to several alliances that ended up surrendering.

The terms posting thing could have been easily settled without the entire fight by Legion merely querying someone and there would have been an apology from our side most likely. If Legion had revealed that there was a significant chance of white peace being rejected outright the second time when LordFingolfin suddenly left the channel instead of chalking it up to personal opposition when we inquired about his departure, we wouldn't have had the posting mess either. Was the gun jumped? Yes. Was it entirely unexpected that Legion would end up rejecting white peace? Yes.

However, that incident did not change the fact that it was known terms would be worse if white peace was rejected.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='22 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1266877716' post='2197944']
To be fair, Legion was advised before any of that happened that if they did not accept white peace that there would be additional terms. Similar warnings were given to several alliances that ended up surrendering.

The terms posting thing could have been easily settled without the entire fight by Legion merely querying someone and there would have been an apology from our side most likely. If Legion had revealed that there was a significant chance of white peace being rejected outright the second time when LordFingolfin suddenly left the channel instead of chalking it up to personal opposition when we inquired about his departure, we wouldn't have had the posting mess either. Was the gun jumped? Yes. Was it entirely unexpected that Legion would end up rejecting white peace? Yes.

However, that incident did not change the fact that it was known terms would be worse if white peace was rejected.
[/quote]

Oh I am by no means claiming Legion's innocence. Both were as bad as each other