hymli Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1267015313' post='2201304'] The doors to negotiations haven't been opened. We have been told white peace or nothing. We didn't bite on option one. You're probably right though in the end you will pay more than [b]some[/b] reps. Not to umbrella but at the very least to the people you aggressively attacked. [/quote] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2190173 Doesn't sound like white peace or nothing to me. As I said, this isn't about your allies coming to your defense any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='hymli' date='24 February 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1267018533' post='2201347'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2190173 Doesn't sound like white peace or nothing to me. As I said, this isn't about your allies coming to your defense any more. [/quote] The peace negotiations that have been had so far have ended in top saying it's white peace or nothing. That post doesn't change that fact. Yes it's still about our allies coming to our defense. The fact that you're losing the war doesn't magically remove the fact that you attacked us. You may not like it but you put yourself in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='hymli' date='24 February 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1267018533' post='2201347'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81101&view=findpost&p=2190173 Doesn't sound like white peace or nothing to me. As I said, this isn't about your allies coming to your defense any more. [/quote] We aren't even sure on what we want to offer. There are 22 alliances fighting TOP and every alliance needs to be taken into account before we can offer TOP peace terms. And TOP's offer has always been white peace or nothing so far. Edited February 24, 2010 by Sir Keshav IV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomede Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Wait, why are we discussing TOP's peace terms in a thread about Umbrella and TSO? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='janax' date='24 February 2010 - 05:31 AM' timestamp='1266989705' post='2200633'] Argent collects a stat. The only Citadel alliance to never break the Lux's prohibition of attacking OTPs. Take that, stat monkeys. [/quote] Umbrella didn't break it either. EDIT: LJ got there first Edited February 24, 2010 by Kowalski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 07:38 AM' timestamp='1267015313' post='2201304'] The doors to negotiations haven't been opened. We have been told white peace or nothing. We didn't bite on option one. You're probably right though in the end you will pay more than [b]some[/b] reps. Not to umbrella but at the very least to the people you aggressively attacked. [/quote] [quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 08:39 AM' timestamp='1267018969' post='2201353'] The peace negotiations that have been had so far have ended in top saying it's white peace or nothing. That post doesn't change that fact. Yes it's still about our allies coming to our defense. The fact that you're losing the war doesn't magically remove the fact that you attacked us. You may not like it but you put yourself in this situation. [/quote] [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='24 February 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1267019029' post='2201355'] We aren't even sure on what we want to offer. There are 22 alliances fighting TOP and every alliance needs to be taken into account before we can offer TOP peace terms. And TOP's offer has always been white peace or nothing so far. [/quote] So, Umbrella is being used by C&G to muscle us into agreeing to less favorable terms? Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomede Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Kowalski' date='24 February 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1267024655' post='2201450'] Umbrella didn't break it either. EDIT: LJ got there first [/quote] Even though it was a ghost DoW... Zenith. I'm pretty glad you did as it meant we got to beat down on them though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstep Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Sir Keshav IV' date='24 February 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1267019029' post='2201355'] We aren't even sure on what we want to offer. There are 22 alliances fighting TOP and every alliance needs to be taken into account before we can offer TOP peace terms. And TOP's offer has always been white peace or nothing so far. [/quote] TOP's been awaiting a counter offer for almost a week now, and if you read the Grand Chancellor's statement its quite clear its not white peace or nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Diomede' date='24 February 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1267028913' post='2201528'] Even though it was a ghost DoW... Zenith. I'm pretty glad you did as it meant we got to beat down on them though. [/quote] Damn you Diomede, you win again. I was confused by the fact the original comment popped up in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='watchman' date='24 February 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1267028587' post='2201523'] So, Umbrella is being used by C&G to muscle us into agreeing to less favorable terms? Good luck with that. [/quote] Why did you quote those posts? Were you going for a non sequitur kind of thing? Umbrella isn't being used. You attacked us and since we hold a treaty with them they attacked you. This really shouldn't be that complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 Wow people really need to stop complaining about defensive pacts activating when alliances get attacked. Also, Umbrella, you're like my favorite alliance that I'm not allied to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1267033724' post='2201666'] Why did you quote those posts? Were you going for a non sequitur kind of thing? Umbrella isn't being used. You attacked us and since we hold a treaty with them they attacked you. This really shouldn't be that complicated. [/quote] You activated your treaty as a defensive move? Unlikely. We are fighting 16 alliances currently. An aggressive move? Much more likely. C&G clearly desires strict reparations and Umbrella will assist them in achieving that goal. Calling in an ally to further pressure a foe into accepting terms is not a defensive move. It is an aggressive one. That is not a complaint. It is just an attempt to cut through the spin and silly poli-babble that you are promulgating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 So CnG was supposed to not use their primary advantage (superior diplomatic/political situation) and instead engage in a top-tier slugging match that plays to all of TOP's advantages? I don't buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchman Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='24 February 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1267035762' post='2201733'] So CnG was supposed to not use their primary advantage (superior diplomatic/political situation) and instead engage in a top-tier slugging match that plays to all of TOP's advantages? I don't buy it. [/quote] I didn't question their methods. I merely pointed out their intentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='watchman' date='24 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1267036013' post='2201744'] I didn't question their methods. I merely pointed out their intentions. [/quote] I'm not getting caught up in the aggressive/defensive semantics argument again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='24 February 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267035762' post='2201733'] So CnG was supposed to not use their primary advantage (superior diplomatic/political situation) and instead engage in a top-tier slugging match that plays to all of TOP's advantages? I don't buy it. [/quote] And vice versa, during WWE, we were not supposed to use our top-tier advantage and play to all of CnG's advantages of a superior political situation? That being said, the defensive/offensive argument is indeed bland and one that nobody will ever agree on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='LiquidMercury' date='24 February 2010 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1267036489' post='2201756'] And vice versa, during WWE, we were not supposed to use our top-tier advantage and play to all of CnG's advantages of a superior political situation? That being said, the defensive/offensive argument is indeed bland and one that nobody will ever agree on. [/quote] Not really sure what you're talking about here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='watchman' date='24 February 2010 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1267036013' post='2201744'] I didn't question their methods. I merely pointed out their intentions. [/quote] You make a huge leap of faith when you claim that we're asking our allies for help to make you pay more reps though. We're simply trying to make sure you guys take as much damage as possible while dealing as little as possible. Mean? Maybe. Tactically sound? Hell yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomede Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 The entire aggression/defence argument is probably one of the most pedantic and useless discussions ever to exist. War is war. And it's fun, so just enjoy it and shut up. Come to think of it, that can apply to just about everyone. As much as that TOP et al did sucked, I liked the TE style to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 (edited) [quote name='watchman' date='24 February 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1267036013' post='2201744'] I didn't question their methods. I merely pointed out their intentions. [/quote] CnG intends to [i]win the war[/i]??? Monstrous. They certainly don't need any advantage they can muster. I mean, it's not like CnG alliances like MK and Athens are taking gigantic nuclear beatings. They should totally limit engagement and cause more damage to themselves. It's a viable strategy (if you're watchman). Edit: Re-reading what you said, it's even more asinine than I initially thought, so if you prefer you can use the alternative refutation of "lol watchman". Edited February 24, 2010 by Elyat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='LJ Scott' date='24 February 2010 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1267016503' post='2201325'] Can't break what doesn't exist D: [/quote] Karma war. Umbrella DoWs Zenith, OTP of Old Guard. We still win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kortal Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 People getting a little too [i]serious[/i] itt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 [quote name='janax' date='24 February 2010 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1267042019' post='2201880'] Karma war. Umbrella DoWs Zenith, OTP of Old Guard. We still win. [/quote] Actually since Zenith attacked our OTP (Poison Clan) first we were able to hit them without violating it. [size="1"] I really don't want to give up this stat ;_;[/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 That was my interpretation at the time and it seems like that would follow the spirit of the clause. Anyway, back to the real point of this thread: MK, I'm happy to come to your defense. The faith you placed in us not too long ago has not been forgotten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted February 24, 2010 Report Share Posted February 24, 2010 It probably does. I'm just trying to recollect some stats. Don't be a hater :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.