Notice of Cancellation

[AirMe]

[quote name='mhawk' date='24 February 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1267043289' post='2201904']
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.
[/quote]

This, I think I can agree with.

[Jim Bob the Glorious]

[b]Pure.[/b]

[quote]Molon Labe and DOOM, acknowledging their continued participation in this war is of no assistance to their allies and acknowledging defeat at the hands of MK, STA, NSO, and NpO, agree to the following terms for peace:
-Molon Labe and DOOM will not re-enter the conflict by offering military assistance (including spying) to any present combatants.
-Molon Labe and DOOM will not offer any economic assistance to any present combatants.
[/quote]

[b]White.[/b]

[quote]Tonight the forces of the Terra-Cotta Pact and the Ordinance of the Force accepted the surrender of The Phoenix Federation to their combined efforts and agreed to an end of hostilities.

Both sides have ended the war amicably and acknowledge that all parties performed admirably on the field of battle, each alliance giving as much as it got day in and day out.

Therefore, we, the nations of the New Sith Order, the Imperium of Man and The Galactic Republic acknowledge victory on the killing fields over The Phoenix Federation. This acknowledgement comes with but one stipulation.

The Phoenix Federation, in accordance with discussed terms of surrender, agrees to pay reparations to the New Sith Order. These reparations represent the blood, sweat and tears of the citizens of the nations that fought valiantly in this effort. They also represent our desire to see the affronts of the past punished to the most extreme of possibilities, hoping that through this sacrifice The Phoenix Federation will learn a valuable lesson on how to treat their fellow alliances and the Cyberverse in general.

Reparations are $1. If we wanted people to learn life lessons we would run a school, not a military alliance.

This is a white peace otherwise. No decommissioning, no treaties, no non-aggression pacts, no lose of nuclear first strike privileges, no forced resignations, nothing but peace. We entered to honor a debt and that debt is being paid in full. We do not push any agenda and do not seek to see any alliance destroyed beyond that which occurs through the normal course of battle.


Signed for the New Sith Order,
Ivan Kalinski Moldavi, Dread Lord of Stromholde, Dark Lord of the Sith, Sovereign of the New Sith Order[/quote]

Peace?

[Lennox]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1267046133' post='2201974']
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.



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
[/quote]

The former was not the sole opinion of the NSO. The latter was satirical, though it seems to have flown over your head.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Lennox' date='24 February 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1267046394' post='2201986']
The former was not the sole opinion of the NSO. The latter was satirical, though it seems to have flown over your head.
[/quote]

You still signed them.

In any case, the issue as it was explained to me by Ivan is not the beer review. The issue is this:

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='23 February 2010 - 10:52 PM' timestamp='1266983753' post='2200476']
The NSO will never surrender so long as I am at the helm. Never.
[/quote]

Even if the terms were just "you win, we surrender, peace", according to Ivan he wouldn't accept them. That is your choice of course, as stupid as it is.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Lennox]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1267046567' post='2201988']
You still signed them.

In any case, the issue as it was explained to me by Ivan is not the beer review. The issue is this:
[/quote]

The beer review signifies a surrender. At least to us anyway.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Lennox' date='24 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1267046667' post='2201991']
The beer review signifies a surrender. At least to us anyway.
[/quote]

See my edit.

Even if the terms were just "you win, we surrender, peace", according to Ivan he wouldn't accept them.

[Tigerdonia Redux]

So NSO isn't doing a beer review because then they cant spin this war as a victory in the future?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1267046567' post='2201988']
You still signed them.

In any case, the issue as it was explained to me by Ivan is not the beer review. The issue is this:
[/quote]
You guys are seeking a surrender in the \m/ vs NpO War and your side which was with \m/ and you never won, as it was supposedly \m/ giving into NpO's demands and white peace all around. If it was \m/ giving into NpO's demands and we entered on NpO's side, why would we be the ones forced to accept terms?

That conflict could either be seen as a NpO victory because \m/ followed the demands or a draw with no winner to be decided. It was chosen that in our case extended war until you can get a surrender out of us was preferable over a normal white peace like STA got when peacing out SF.

[wickedj]

Hey folks, check back a few pages..the beer review is off the table. If i read his post correctly the way out is to wave one of these

[img]http://www.testcompany.com/archive/June2008-22/att-5503/whiteflag.jpg[/img]

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1267046748' post='2201992']
See my edit.

Even if the terms were just "you win, we surrender, peace", according to Ivan he wouldn't accept them.
[/quote]

We are a dictatorship after all.
But Moldavi is taking into the consideration of the membership as well. He has been very adamant about cooperating with the general populace of NSO.

And we understand your arguments and they're not being flown over our heads. We just don't want to surrender. It's as simple as that. You can call it hubris, pride, arrogance, or us just being obnoxious over something as stupid as a beer review. The fact of the matter is that we are very proud of who we are, and what we have done in this war. It is not unreasonable for our membership and Moldavi to believe that we deserve something better than us surrendering.

[Benjamin Arouet]

[quote name='Tick1' date='24 February 2010 - 03:12 PM' timestamp='1267046134' post='2201975']
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.
[/quote]

When this war ends on one front, we want it to stay ended. If NSO isn't willing to commit in writing to not coming back into the war, I see no reason to think that they wouldn't. If they aren't planning on re-entering, there's no reason not to commit to such, as signing the agreement doesn't physically constrain their action, it just helps demonstrate the need for stricter terms if they break their word. I don't see why you're singling out CSN, either... as I've said, no one in this war has offered terms except with that stipulation.

Also, I see NSO wasn't even correct with its claims to have always offered white peace themselves... I'll admit I don't really follow them well enough to have assessed the validity of that claim myself, and I thank others for investigating it fully. I see no further reason for them to claim they deserve such a set of terms.

[Bob Janova]

If you will really 'never surrender' then you are driving your own alliance into the ground, and I have more sympathy for Polar. You're doing the victim complex thing that TPF made their own in Karma, but it sounds like you're not doing it for anyone, you'll keep doing it forever. Staying in the war for IRON is admirable, although you're not really much help to them any more, but at some point, if you want to see infra in your future, you're going to have to surrender.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Tigerdonia Redux' date='24 February 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1267046877' post='2201996']
So NSO isn't doing a beer review because then they cant spin this war as a victory in the future?
[/quote]

No. Take another guess, you're getting warmer.

[Lennox]

[quote name='wickedj' date='24 February 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1267047221' post='2202009']
Hey folks, check back a few pages..the beer review is off the table. If i read his post correctly the way out is to wave one of these

[img]http://www.testcompany.com/archive/June2008-22/att-5503/whiteflag.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


And as we have said over and over, we will not surrender.

[arentak]

I've seen a lot in the Sith I like, ever since they started. From the white peaces they offer their opponents, to their determination not to surrender, to their commitment to their allies to not leave them behind, these guys are definately impressive. If I ever leave my current home, I might try my hand with a lightsaber and some force lightning.

Peace is a lie!

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Tick1' date='24 February 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1267046134' post='2201975']
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.
[/quote]

Funny, I could have sworn that there has been very few, if not any, white peace declarations made this [b]entire war[/b]. White peace does NOT include terms, and when you tell someone they can't come back into the war, that is NOT White Peace. Nice try though.

[Benjamin Arouet]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1267047313' post='2202012']
If you will really 'never surrender' then you are driving your own alliance into the ground, and I have more sympathy for Polar. You're doing the victim complex thing that TPF made their own in Karma, but it sounds like you're not doing it for anyone, you'll keep doing it forever. Staying in the war for IRON is admirable, although you're not really much help to them any more, but at some point, if you want to see infra in your future, you're going to have to surrender.
[/quote]

That'd be true if they were staying in it for IRON, but Moldavi has already stated in this thread that they will accept peace independently of IRON, just without the stipulation of a surrender. They're just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1267047313' post='2202012']
If you will really 'never surrender' then you are driving your own alliance into the ground, and I have more sympathy for Polar. You're doing the victim complex thing that TPF made their own in Karma, but it sounds like you're not doing it for anyone, you'll keep doing it forever. Staying in the war for IRON is admirable, although you're not really much help to them any more, but at some point, if you want to see infra in your future, you're going to have to surrender.
[/quote]

We're not trying to play the victim here. And while your point about our current war contributions are debatable, we still want to honor our treaty in principle. Of course, that issue has been diminished somewhat since their preemptive strike, but it still remains.

And for the record, we don't care about our infra. We think that there are far more important things at stake here than losing our infra. In fact, I would argue that we have almost nothing to lose in regards with infrastructure.

[Lennox]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1267047313' post='2202012']
If you will really 'never surrender' then you are driving your own alliance into the ground, and I have more sympathy for Polar. You're doing the victim complex thing that TPF made their own in Karma, but it sounds like you're not doing it for anyone, you'll keep doing it forever. Staying in the war for IRON is admirable, although you're not really much help to them any more, but at some point, if you want to see infra in your future, you're going to have to surrender.
[/quote]

That very well may be the case, however it will not happen under the current leadership. Thankfully, the codex of the NSO permits plenty of opportunities for leaders at all levels to be removed or couped.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Benjamin Arouet' date='24 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267047448' post='2202019']
That'd be true if they were staying in it for IRON, but Moldavi has already stated in this thread that they will accept peace independently of IRON, just without the stipulation of a surrender. They're just cutting off their nose to spite their face.
[/quote]

Like I said, Moldavi is considering the wants of our membership. Our wants are in alignment with his.

We are considering peace independent of IRON because, like I mentioned, that issue has diminished somewhat. But it's still a shaky subject.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1267046133' post='2201974']
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.



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
[/quote]
When I reference a lack of ceasefire I mean with Fark, as they are our primary opponent and all the others are engaged ancillary because we are still engaged with Fark.

I still believe there is some disconnect here. Perhaps if people would read what I type instead of conjecture on what they think is going on it would be better. I have not stated that the beer review is a punative term. It is completely reasonable for any alliance to impose whatever terms they think they can get in regards to a war situation. In this instance, my alliance has decided that Fark can not have one from me, so we have refused that term. How is that any different than any other refusal of terms that happens numerous times throughout most conflicts? I would like an answer to that aside from the random [i]opinions[/i] that it is simply a lulz term and should therefore automatically be accepted.

Basically, does anyone think that my alliance is in a position to re-enter if we are given peace? Seriously? It isn't that we want to be able to jump back into the war, it is simply the principle of the point.

Every other alliance on the front got white peace, even \m/, and most of them, since they left relatively unscathed, did re-declare, but there is no moral outrage taking place because a number of them switched sides. I am being told that even though my allies, that I entered to defend, got white peace and that others that were fighting got white peace, that I should be "grateful" to the magnanimous Fark alliance for allowing us to be the only alliance on the entire front to surrender? Really? I personally believe that is !@#$%^&*.

Some people are correct, NSO is not generally liked. We are blowhards and I have an ego bigger than most, but we stand by our allies and we give our all for them. All we have asked is the same consideration. In the future I guess it would be prudent to evaluate how my allies allies perceive me before entering in their defense because if they dislike me then it will be okay to either force us to accept different terms or just leave us on the field.

For all my faults, anyone that knows me knows that such an action will never happen from me, so it should be understandable that I am a bit put off by it happening to me.

Regardless of all that, this thread was simply a public notification that our MDP was cancelled. For my part I am sorry that certain aspects of it evolved into a cross smear campaign between Polar and NSO. Anyone that knows me knows that such a circumstance is very difficult for me.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1267047236' post='2202010']
And we understand your arguments and they're not being flown over our heads. We just don't want to surrender. It's as simple as that. You can call it hubris, pride, arrogance, or us just being obnoxious over something as stupid as a beer review. The fact of the matter is that we are very proud of who we are, and what we have done in this war. It is not unreasonable for our membership and Moldavi to believe that we deserve something better than us surrendering.
[/quote]

I'll call it pride.

I have no desire to see you crippled and would strongly oppose any attempt to force harsh terms upon you. Your total unwillingness to surrender is baffling to me, however. Your Gandhi-esque approach isn't really what I'd expect from the Sith.

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='Lennox' date='24 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1267047372' post='2202014']
And as we have said over and over, we will not surrender.
[/quote]

That's fine then, just don't expect people who are thoroughly winning the conflict to not want you to admit your defeat. I'm not sure why anyone here is really arguing since you don't want to surrender and they're not going to let you off with a "draw". We all know how people like Dopp would spin the hell out it when the time is ripe, so I don't see any real reason for them to give him or others that chance.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' date='24 February 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1267047962' post='2202033']
That's fine then, just don't expect people who are thoroughly winning the conflict to not want you to admit your defeat. I'm not sure why anyone here is really arguing since you don't want to surrender and they're not going to let you off with a "draw". We all know how people like Dopp would spin the hell out it when the time is ripe, so I don't see any real reason for them to give him or others that chance.
[/quote]
An admission of defeat, at least to me, is not the same as surrender. A defeated army can still fight, albeit poorly. The NSO has been thoroughly defeated in this conflict. It is impossible to claim otherwise when facing 12 to 1 odds. It simply is. That isn't the same thing as accepting terms that are different from what I was initially told would be available to me though and it isn't the same as just giving up and surrendering.

If we are destined to be in perpetual war, then we will simply be ankle biters indefinitely, or until I am couped.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267048255' post='2202040']
An admission of defeat, at least to me, is not the same as surrender. A defeated army can still fight, albeit poorly. The NSO has been thoroughly defeated in this conflict. It is impossible to claim otherwise when facing 12 to 1 odds. It simply is. That isn't the same thing as accepting terms that are different from what I was initially told would be available to me though and it isn't the same as just giving up and surrendering.

If we are destined to be in perpetual war, then we will simply be ankle biters indefinitely, or until I am couped.
[/quote]

Who initially told you you'd get white peace?