Notice of Cancellation

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='24 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1267042159' post='2201881']
[color="#0000FF"]Oh, I get it now. NSO was disrespectful to you? Sure you've been much more volatile and quite frankly started whatever bad blood there is between you, but because NSO didn't act timid and bow before you they clearly must pay the price that comes with not respecting your authority. You know, I am pretty sure that if the situations were reversed that the NSO would not be so petty with you as you are being with them.[/color]
[/quote]

So a beer review is truly [i]that[/i] inconvenient? Yeesh, God forbid you commit to such a minor thing for peace.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='24 February 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1267042874' post='2201895']
So a beer review is truly [i]that[/i] inconvenient? Yeesh, God forbid you commit to such a minor thing for peace.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]To be fair, I wouldn't submit myself to such a joke of a term either.[/color]

[tamerlane]

[quote name='mhawk' date='24 February 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1267042618' post='2201892']
I'd actually say NSO has been the least of your image suffering in recent times.
[/quote]

However one cannot deny the lovely toll that NSO had taken on NpO leading up to the most recent events.

[BraveNewWorld]

Good luck Ivan, I'd probably have done the same thing if I were you.

[mhawk]

[quote name='tamerlane' date='24 February 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1267042947' post='2201897']
However one cannot deny the lovely toll that NSO had taken on NpO leading up to the most recent events.
[/quote]
I'd agree NSO probably put Polar into awkward situations, however as far as image damage... well I'd say whatever damage there was due to being allied to NSO while being allied to CnG was so small compared to recent events it might as well be negligible.

[BraveNewWorld]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='24 February 2010 - 03:17 PM' timestamp='1267042874' post='2201895']
So a beer review is truly [i]that[/i] inconvenient? Yeesh, God forbid you commit to such a minor thing for peace.
[/quote]

If it's so minor, then why are Fark insisting upon it?

Besides, I believe it is a beer review AND not re-entering the war in support of their allies who are still fighting. Something which I'm sure their opponents would not agree to.

[bcndwilson]

IRON stands by you in this decision NSO.

o/ Sith

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='24 February 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1267042931' post='2201896']
[color="#0000FF"]To be fair, I wouldn't submit myself to such a joke of a term either.[/color]
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote name='BraveNewWorld' date='24 February 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1267043317' post='2201907']
If it's so minor, then why are Fark insisting upon it?[/quote]

As I'm not in Fark, I obviously cannot comment on that. To argue they are being consistent is rather moot because they haven't applied the beer reviews on a consistent basis. However, I would assume they are either A) trying to set a consistency by applying it or B) are just adding a term just to add a term.

[quote]Besides, I believe it is a beer review AND not re-entering the war in support of their allies who are still fighting. Something which I'm sure their opponents would not agree to.
[/quote]

As much as I say I dislike NSO, I'm more so ambivalent about their state of existence. In all honesty, they have taken a major beating in this war. And that has been the highlighted term in all of the surrenders this entire war: no re-entry. How would that make any sense for peace to be given just for the surrendering alliance to jump back into the fray? Doesn't make that much sense.

[hizzy]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='25 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1267042874' post='2201895']
So a beer review is truly [i]that[/i] inconvenient? Yeesh, God forbid you commit to such a minor thing for peace.
[/quote]

I get what you're saying... I honestly do. And in a way, you're right. The beer review is mostly a joke term, something to "ease" the surrender that everyone can have fun with.

However, if the other guy just doesn't want to play along with it, then it's really not something that should be forced. I always thought it was something that Fark did for fun between themselves and their opponents, like a "no hard feelings" gesture... but if it turns into something that Fark actually imposes on defeated alliances because they get some sort of pathological pleasure from it, then it just becomes retarded.

Edited February 24, 2010 by hizzy

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='hizzy' date='24 February 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1267043897' post='2201919']
I get what you're saying... I honestly do. And in a way, you're right. The beer review is mostly a joke term, something to "ease" the surrender that everyone can have fun with.

However, if the other guy just doesn't want to play along with it, then it's really not something that should be forced. I always thought it was something that Fark did for fun between themselves and their opponents, like a "no hard feelings" gesture... but if it turns into something that Fark actually imposes on defeated alliances because they get some sort of pathological pleasure from it, then it just becomes retarded.
[/quote]

True enough. I was (and am) under the assumption that the beer review wasn't the only thing that reason why peace hasn't been achieved though.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Branimir' date='24 February 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1267040090' post='2201848']
Entitles them? Their sense of self respect? It could be different then some of the other alliances, does not make it less valid.

Again, and I repeat as you are repeating yourself like a broken record in the spirit of false debating, you can judge how silly NSO is and find them to be stupid for rejecting those terms. That way, you can try to make things look better for Polaris. And they are from your point of view.

It is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, though, to the other way at looking at this, the one that comes when you look at the entire picture here.

NpO did not secure peace for NSO when originally leaving the battlefield. Epic wrong as it was their obligation. Then, in an effort to make things right, they re entered on their side, but also on the other side of NSO as well to then just leave them again out to dry by peacing out and not managing to secure NSO peace in the process. I dunno if the even tried,...

"We will make things right", were Grub's words. He didn't. Original mistake was not mended and NSO was not granted white peace. NSO backed NpO in what NpO thought was right. NpO did not give back the in same measure. They could have just dropped the treaty and be over with it.

For NSO the beer review (and not only for them but also some other people as we can see here) term is an insult to them. That is a serious matter. True ally of theirs would respect that and back them, or would recognize that it does not want to back them and end it by a treaty cancellation.
Not, let their allies out to dry --twice-- and then leaving it up to them to do the act that needs to be done after something like that-- cancel their mutual treaty. Low class.
[/quote]

My point was never that "how silly NSO is and find them to be stupid for rejecting those terms". That is merely a premise of a conclusion.

The reason I was repeating/saying the same thing in a different way was because I was under the impression that somehow what I was attempting to get across was not translating to you, not "false debate" or however your putting it. However, it appears you (may have, I'm really not sure) fully understood my point and are just choosing not to address it with anything more then a side sentence.

[quote]Entitles them? Their sense of self respect? It could be different then some of the other alliances, does not make it less valid.
[/quote]

Well, the kicker is in reality, it [i]does [/i]make it less valid in the given the particular circumstances, and that was my entire point. If no one else was adversely affected by NSO suddenly claiming that a beer review is a matter of self respect, there would be nothing wrong with it. Yet, the fault comes when an ally is harmed due to their decision and stance on the issue, depending if or if not that stance itself is warranted. If there is at least some reasonable cause to believe their stance is justified, or if they were entitled to some special privilege that makes that stance justified, then it would be Polars job to stand by them and they should welcome the harm that would come as a consequence of that. However (and here is where you think my main point is but hopefully laid out like this you will understand its merely a contributing factor) where it is clear that the stance itself has no reasonable foundation and there is obviously no inherent special privilege that makes it justified, maintaining that stance while bringing undue harm to an ally is disrespectful and you cannot fault your ally for leaving.

Note the word [i]reasonable [/i]used multiple times, absorb it, it's key as far as I am concerned.

Also, this applies from the moment of the first offer, so it predates as cause any quotes left unfulfilled from grub that may be referenced, and from this point of view can be seen as the "original mistake".

Edited February 24, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Lennox]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='24 February 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1267014634' post='2201289']
So, that beer review is looking pretty nice now huh?
[/quote]

Nope.

Edit: It has crossed my mind that some people still don't seem to realize we are not going to do a beer review. If that means war, then so be it.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lennox

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='24 February 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1267041113' post='2201865']
Indeed I do, which leads me to questions - why is it that NSO intends on scoring political points against Polaris? What possible good can come of that for you? Is this one of those "You can't fire me because I quit, now who's coming with me?" kind of things? I honestly don't see where any of this drama benefits you in the slightest. For most people it comes off rather hollow and childish.

Speaking to the larger points of this cancellation, you can't sanely expect us to join in your voluntary eternal war suicide pact. If you did expect us to, I'm very glad this treaty is canceled. You guys refused [i]very[/i] reasonable terms under a silly "no surrender" ethos. When you're losing a war, sometimes the smart thing to do is cut your losses and bow out gracefully. I've done it before, so has Ivan. It stings but you can use that sting as a motivator, too.

Refusing peace because someone thought being required to write a couple paragraphs about a beverage was insult is a gigantic slap in the face to the people who time and time again backed you to the hilt even when you were very, very much in the wrong. [b]Our image has suffered greatly in the past several months in no small part due to our treaty with NSO.[/b] Hopefully now that we don't have to balance treaty obligations with our sense of dignity we can move forward and repair some severely damaged long-term friendships.
[/quote]

This is rich. I think NpO has suffered much more due to the actions of Polaris leaders. And I am sure I am not alone with that opinion.

[TheEraser]

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='24 February 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1267044364' post='2201934']
This is rich. I think NpO has suffered much more due to the actions of Polaris leaders. And I am sure I am not alone with that opinion.
[/quote]
please. you of all people have no room to talk.


Its unfortunate that it came to this NSO, but you've gotta do what you gotta do.

[Benjamin Arouet]

[quote name='BraveNewWorld' date='24 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1267043317' post='2201907']
If it's so minor, then why are Fark insisting upon it?

Besides, I believe it is a beer review AND not re-entering the war in support of their allies who are still fighting. Something which I'm sure their opponents would not agree to.
[/quote]

I'm sure if those of us on the other side were losing the war, we would be forced to agree to such terms as a condition for our release from the war, at the very least. As a matter of fact, the relatively few alliances who have sought peace from the "SuperGrievances" (or whatever we're calling ourselves these days) side have had to agree to exactly that kind of term. I think the notion that NSO somehow deserves white peace simply because they say they do is an interesting fiction, especially considering their continuing displays of obnoxious bravado, etc.

I'm ambivalent on the beer review thing personally, but I certainly don't think it's any insurmountable barrier to peace, and the deal offered to NSO is probably far better than they deserve based on the whole of their conduct. Mind you, this is a common feature of this war and not something I particularly object to, as anyone will tell you I am an advocate of relatively lighter surrender terms.

(Also, off-topic: Nice to see you still among the living, BNW, you should get back to diplomattin' around our way sometime )

[Lennox]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267029248' post='2201534']
A beer review isn't a surrender term. It [b]is[/b] an admission of defeat. There is actually a difference. An admission of defeat is just that. An admission of "Ok, you really whupped us, you win, let's call this off." This is what the vast majorities of so-called "white peace" declarations entail.

A surrender is, in addition to an admission of defeat, a submission to the will of the victor. It is saying "you have vanquished us, we want out, but we recognize that we must bend to your whims and will to do so." No one (yet) is asking this of NSO.

NSO has lost this war. No two ways around it. Trying to seek a simple "end of hostilities" where no one is officially the victor, simply for the egotistical and utterly transparent claim of being "undefeated" is, at this juncture, stupid and counterproductive. A "white peace" the way that NSO is trying to define it is something reserved for opponents who are so evenly matched that no clear victor is apparent, and for opponents who acquit themselves so well that they earn the respect, mercy, and approbation of their opponents. Sadly, for NSO, things are not evenly matched and they have spit in the face of every opportunity to earn respect or mercy.

So now, they have to admit they lost. Not surrender, but own up to the reality of the situation.
[/quote]

No, surrendering is the act of admitting defeat. Therefore you have already contradicted yourself. The fact that NSO is losing this war, statistically anyway, isn't being argued. We've lost 70% of our NS and haven't said otherwise. On the subject of white peace, again you are wrong. We have given white peace to every single alliance we fought even when we've had them in a headlock. So no, I don't understand how white peace is reserved for "opponents who are so evenly matched."

[Anthony]

[quote name='Benjamin Arouet' date='24 February 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1267045061' post='2201952']
I'm sure if those of us on the other side were losing the war, we would be forced to agree to such terms as a condition for our release from the war, at the very least. As a matter of fact, the relatively few alliances who have sought peace from the "SuperGrievances" (or whatever we're calling ourselves these days) side have had to agree to exactly that kind of term. I think the notion that NSO somehow deserves white peace simply because they say they do is an interesting fiction, especially considering their continuing displays of obnoxious bravado, etc.
[/quote]

Actually no. NSO has never offered anything but a pure white peace. Don't go around thinking if the situation was reversed we'd be making wild demands.

Edit: You know what, Lennox? You're in trouble...

Edited February 24, 2010 by Anthony

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='24 February 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1267044208' post='2201928']
My point was never that "how silly NSO is and find them to be stupid for rejecting those terms". That is merely a premise of a conclusion.

The reason I was repeating/saying the same thing in a different way was because I was under the impression that somehow what I was attempting to get across was not translating to you, not "false debate" or however your putting it. However, it appears you (may have, I'm really not sure) fully understood my point and are just choosing not to address it with anything more then a side sentence.



Well, the kicker is in reality, it [i]does [/i]make it less valid in the given the particular circumstances, and that was my entire point. If no one else was adversely affected by NSO suddenly claiming that a beer review is a matter of self respect, there would be nothing wrong with it. Yet, the fault comes when an ally is harmed due to their decision and stance on the issue, depending if or if not that stance itself is warranted. If there is at least some reasonable cause to believe their stance is justified, or if they were entitled to some special privilege that makes that stance justified, then it would be Polars job to stand by them and they should welcome the harm that would come as a consequence of that. However (and here is where you think my main point is but hopefully laid out like this you will understand its merely a contributing factor) where it is clear that the stance itself has no reasonable foundation and there is obviously no inherent special privilege that makes it justified, maintaining that stance while bringing undue harm to an ally is disrespectful and you cannot fault your ally for leaving.

Note the word [i]reasonable [/i]used multiple times, absorb it, it's key as far as I am concerned.

Also, this applies from the moment of the first offer, so it predates as cause any quotes left unfulfilled from grub that may be referenced, and from this point of view can be seen as the "original mistake".
[/quote]

Look. We're fighting in middle ground here. We have treaty obligations to IRON too. Remember that we were initially denied peace because Fark presumed that we would just jump back in the defense of IRON. That sort of reasoning is still prevalent now. The issue of Fark wanting us to surrender via a stupid beer review, is also something that our membership has considered. Now we are a very tight nit alliance. We don't think that we have to surrender just because we got soundly beat. Now you speak of rationality and reasoning in regards to this. I would argue that it is very rational for us to not surrender. Why? Because our goal is to preserve our dignity, not our infrastructure. We think that the most rational approach to preserving our dignity is to not surrender. If we surrender, then we what will we have? An alliance of 1.3 NS? That's it?

Rest assured, this is not misplaced pride. This is our culture. Even if it is not how your membership would approach it, this is the kind of response you get from a membership with a culture such as ours.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Jrenster

[Benjamin Arouet]

[quote name='Anthony' date='24 February 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1267045395' post='2201962']
Actually no. NSO has never offered anything but a pure white peace. Don't go around thinking if the situation was reversed we'd be making wild demands.

Edit: You know what, Lennox? You're in trouble...
[/quote]

I understand your argument, but it could apply only if you think about it in the absence of other alliances. If the situation was truly reversed, you'd be one alliance in a broader coalition doing a pretty decent job of beating us up, and I can't think of another alliance that wouldn't attach the term of not re-entering on either side of this conflict.

In the immediate pursuit of peace, you have to negotiate in the world as it exists, not in the world as your alliance would run things.

Also, I don't know of any wars that NSO has engaged in where they've ended up on the winning side against anyone but tiny alliances for whom offering the term of pure white peace would be relatively harmless.

[Lennox]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1267041836' post='2201877']
Either way NSO isn't/wasn't being singled out.[/quote]


Yes, the NSO is being singled out. At this point, you really have no argument to support your claim.



[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1267041836' post='2201877']NSO expects Fark to treat them like all Fark's other opponents were treated. Is it not reasonable, as the flip side of that coin, for Fark to expect NSO to treat them like all Fark's other opponents, then? It all comes down to the fact that one's actions and outcomes do not exist in a vacuum. The each influence the other. [/quote]

We expect white peace because that's all we've given to our opponents in the past. This, coupled with the fact others are getting off scot-free, is very perplexing. And yes, if the situation was reversed with NSO holding the numerical advantage, FARK would get white peace. Our track record will prove this.

Edit: Damn quotes

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lennox

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1267032678' post='2201633']
The NSO never got a ceasefire. Not sure what you are talking about.
[/quote]

I don't think this quite accurate. We agreed to a ceasefire with you at the same time as we did with STA, which lasted until your re-declaration on Fark. I remember talking to Heft about it.

[quote name='Anthony' date='24 February 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1267045395' post='2201962']
Actually no. NSO has never offered anything but a pure white peace. Don't go around thinking if the situation was reversed we'd be making wild demands.
[/quote]

This is not true, you have enforced various terms in the past.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56830
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=56827

[Tick1]

[quote name='Benjamin Arouet' date='24 February 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1267045819' post='2201968']
I understand your argument, but it could apply only if you think about it in the absence of other alliances. If the situation was truly reversed, you'd be one alliance in a broader coalition doing a pretty decent job of beating us up, and I can't think of another alliance that wouldn't attach the term of not re-entering on either side of this conflict.

In the immediate pursuit of peace, you have to negotiate in the world as it exists, not in the world as your alliance would run things.

Also, I don't know of any wars that NSO has engaged in where they've ended up on the winning side against anyone but tiny alliances for whom offering the term of pure white peace would be relatively harmless.
[/quote]

Anyone that doesn't offer white peace either wants to truly destroy his opponent or feels there is more to gain from whaling upon their enemy. If NSO was to re-enter the war after being given white peace, you then declare on them an impose stricter terms/reparations. CSN on the other hand feels they have more to gain from staying engaged with said alliance.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Benjamin Arouet' date='24 February 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1267045819' post='2201968']
I understand your argument, but it could apply only if you think about it in the absence of other alliances. If the situation was truly reversed, you'd be one alliance in a broader coalition doing a pretty decent job of beating us up, and I can't think of another alliance that wouldn't attach the term of not re-entering on either side of this conflict.

In the immediate pursuit of peace, you have to negotiate in the world as it exists, not in the world as your alliance would run things.

Also, I don't know of any wars that NSO has engaged in where they've ended up on the winning side against anyone but tiny alliances for whom offering the term of pure white peace would be relatively harmless.
[/quote]

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/New_Sith_Order

This may refresh your memory.

[Jack Diorno]

haaahaaahaahaaaaaaaaaaaa

I wonder if NpO will now try to wage moral crusade wars against NSO.

[Sephiroth]

From what I've heard Fark's beer review peace agreement wasn't a standing offer and has already been taken off the table, so its really a moot point unless people are arguing over what we should of done back when it was offered.

Both times Ivan was offered the beer review surrender agreement he went to the alliance with the offer and held a vote on whether to accept, both times it was against accepting the terms and going along with what would of been a surrender.

Now if NSO rejecting those offers at the time means we are at war for a very long time and harsh reps become the only way we can get peace, then we'll keep fighting until we get a peace we can accept and I would still think rejecting the beer reviews was a good move. That we would be sitting on the sidelines throughout this war bored I think is reason enough it was a good idea not to surrender. Why should everyone else get white peace and continue having fun nuking stuff but not us?

Anyways my personal view is the beer review isn't a big deal compared to other off-white peaces we've been seeing, but I voted against accepting them since it would of involved agreeing not to honor treaties in what CnG was claiming a new war and this has been a good one so I wouldn't of wanted to peace out so early if it meant we couldn't fight elsewhere.