Notice of Cancellation

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1267048360' post='2202043']
Who initially told you you'd get white peace?
[/quote]
I was told when Polar peaced with \m/ that all combatants on the front were getting white peace. Since the NSO was an ancillary alliance in the conflict I took it at face value because my people were not a part of the grand scheme planning. I was not aware that it was still in negotiation at that point and was told afterwards when I first approached Randomly Jim that it was not the case. That is what prompted the move to get our allies in Terra Cotta out because it became clear that we were not going to be given the same consideration.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 09:02 PM' timestamp='1267045575' post='2201967']
Look. We're fighting in middle ground here. [b]We have treaty obligations to IRON too[/b]. 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.
[/quote]


The irrationality lies in attaching the concept of lost dignity to the actions of surrendering/doing a beer review. There is just simply no way to support that aside from merely saying it. As the OP concedes, it is not a matter of not wanting to end the fight until your allies are out, as you all would accept white peace, but rather a refusal to acknowledge the concept of surrender, so it is fact that aspect of the situation is not at issue. Now, if what you were asked to do was unreasonable, you would see me speaking in your favor here. If what you were asked to do was at all questionable, or even more then a mere symbolic gesture, my opinion would be neutral. But, as it stands, it is simply a symbolic gesture to reflect the reality of your situation which has absolutely zero bearing on dignity, and all that I said in my post you quoted therefore applies. Furthermore, like I already explained, if your community views it as an affront to your dignity then no one can fault you for that by itself, no matter how unreasonable it may be. Here though, by being unreasonable you are effectively breaching a duty owed to an ally, and by doing so have brought them harm, and you cannot fault them for leaving now that you have made it clear that you will not change your injurious stance on the matter.

The bold portion is a much more reasonable standpoint. If this was all based around your treaty obligations to IRON, as opposed to your insistence that a beer review was somehow harmful to your dignity, Polar's actions would be much more suspect in my book. While people can have differing opinions on how far a treaty obligation needs to be taken, or how much support IRON is due, etc, I don't think anyone can argue that staying in a war because your ally is in a war is unreasonable. If you have any doubt, consider the following two phrases: (1) "We are in this war still because our ally is in this war still, so you should stay as well, Polar"; (2) "We are in this war because doing a beer review or accepting anything but white peace will bruise our sense of dignity somehow, so you should stay as well, Polar". Which one passes the laugh test?.

However, that ship has sailed, it was made clear in the OP and by other various statements in this threat that the core of the issue for you all at this point in time is that of white peace v. off white peace.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1267048484' post='2202046']
I was told when Polar peaced with \m/ that all combatants on the front were getting white peace. Since the NSO was an ancillary alliance in the conflict I took it at face value because my people were not a part of the grand scheme planning. I was not aware that it was still in negotiation at that point and was told afterwards when I first approached Randomly Jim that it was not the case. That is what prompted the move to get our allies in Terra Cotta out because it became clear that we were not going to be given the same consideration.
[/quote]

You didn't answer my question. Who told you you'd get white peace, Grub? FinsterBaby? The AUT?

[Crowdog07]

[quote name='Wad of Lint' date='24 February 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1267031007' post='2201591']
The motivations for declaring on FARK are important. It is already well known that we were not willing to take terms. The peace deal that was worked out between all combatants on that front (including our allies) required the review which is a hot topic of contention. When it was decided (the first time) that such was unacceptable, some of our allies (we still have some amazing ones) said they would not leave as long as we were still at war. Therefore, [u][b]we declared an offensive war to ensure that they would be able to maintain peace and not be bound to defend us.[/b][/u] Convoluted logic? Sure, but these are convoluted times. Did it work? You betcha.
[/quote]

So you're pissed that they peaced out after defending you? Pick an argument and stick with it please.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='24 February 2010 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1267048699' post='2202049']
The irrationality lies in attaching the loss of dignity to surrendering/a beer review. There is just simply no way to support that aside from merely saying it. As the OP concedes, it is not a matter of not wanting to end the fight until your allies are out, as you all would accept white peace, but rather a refusal to acknowledge the concept of surrender, so it is fact that aspect of the situation is not at issue. Now, if what you were asked to do was unreasonable, you would see me speaking in your favor here. If what you were asked to do was at all questionable, or even more then a mere symbolic gesture, my opinion would be neutral. But, as it stands, it is simply a symbolic gesture to reflect the reality of your situation which has absolutely zero bearing on dignity, and all that was said in my post you quoted therefore applies. Furthermore, like I said before, if your community views it as an affront to your dignity then no one can fault you for that by itself, no matter how unreasonable it may be. Here though, by being unreasonable you are effectively breaching a duty owed to an ally, and by doing so have brought them harm, and you cannot fault them for leaving now that you have made it clear that you will not change your injurious stance on the matter.

The bold portion is a much more reasonable standpoint. If this was all based around your treaty obligations to IRON, as opposed to your insistence that a beer review was somehow harmful to your dignity, Polar's actions would be much more suspect in my book. While people can have differing opinions on how far a treaty obligation needs to be taken, or how much support IRON is due, etc, I don't think anyone can argue that staying in a war because your ally is in a war is unreasonable. If you have any doubt, consider the following two phrases: (1) "We are in this war still because our ally is in this war still, so you should stay as well, Polar"; (2) "We are in this war because doing a beer review or accepting anything but white peace will bruise our sense of dignity somehow, so you should stay as well, Polar". Which one passes the laugh test?.

However, that ship has sailed, it was made clear in the OP and by other various statements in this threat that the core of the issue for you all at this point in time is that of white peace v. off white peace.
[/quote]
The only reason IRON isn't as much of a consideration is simply that from the very beginning it was understood that NSO was not ever meant to be a tactical or logistic support for IRON in their wars. Their declaration on CnG occurred while we were already engaged which several alliances. At no point prior to that was it ever stated that NSO would be needed to help IRON, or that it even realistically could. Over time that has changed somewhat but IRON is aware of all that NSO has given for them in this conflict. The majority of our losses have occurred since the initial front peaced out. Several members of the IRON government are understanding of that and understand that NSO has realistically given all that it can reasonably be expected to give on their behalf, so our exit at this point, which is unlikely regardless because Fark has stated they will not relent, is a moot issue in regards to the IRON wars.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Lennox' date='24 February 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1267045324' post='2201960']
No, surrendering is the act of admitting defeat. Therefore you have already contradicted yourself.
[/quote]

[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]

Yo Lennox, might want to check out the official talking points handbook real quick.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1267048484' post='2202046']
I was told when Polar peaced with \m/ that all combatants on the front were getting white peace. Since the NSO was an ancillary alliance in the conflict I took it at face value because my people were not a part of the grand scheme planning. I was not aware that it was still in negotiation at that point and was told afterwards when I first approached Randomly Jim that it was not the case. That is what prompted the move to get our allies in Terra Cotta out because it became clear that we were not going to be given the same consideration.
[/quote]
I believe Lord Brendan asked you "who", not to restate your claims about the events that transpired.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1267048802' post='2202055']
You didn't answer my question. Who told you you'd get white peace, Grub? FinsterBaby? The AUT?
[/quote]
Ah, my apologies. When I say Polar I mean Grub. The Emperor is the embodiment of the Order and I don't generally get my information from subordinates.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='24 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1267047907' post='2202031']
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.
[/quote]

Thank you. I would hope that it does not come down to harsh terms for our pride, albeit I would not be surprised.
And.
Should it baffle you? Haven't we always been full of hubris?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='24 February 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1267048989' post='2202065']
I believe Lord Brendan asked you "who", not to restate your claims about the events that transpired.
[/quote]
Yeah, thanks for speaking up for him. I am sure he appreciates it.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1267048959' post='2202063']
The only reason IRON isn't as much of a consideration is simply that from the very beginning it was understood that NSO was not ever meant to be a tactical or logistic support for IRON in their wars. Their declaration on CnG occurred while we were already engaged which several alliances. At no point prior to that was it ever stated that NSO would be needed to help IRON, or that it even realistically could. Over time that has changed somewhat but IRON is aware of all that NSO has given for them in this conflict. The majority of our losses have occurred since the initial front peaced out. Several members of the IRON government are understanding of that and understand that NSO has realistically given all that it can reasonably be expected to give on their behalf, so our exit at this point, which is unlikely regardless because Fark has stated they will not relent, is a moot issue in regards to the IRON wars.
[/quote]

I understand that, which is why I used supporting them as a counter point (in the interest of being objective).

[heggo]

It is worth noting that even when Fark offered us beer reviews and no re-entry as terms, they did not do so in good faith. Consider that in our initial negotiations they offered us these terms only to promptly declare war on our ally IRON. Their goal wasn't to give us peace, but rather to either force us to violate our treaty with IRON or stall us until our treaty obligations would force us back into the war for a time.

It is also worth noting that, during later negotiations, randomly (and some others, if I recall correctly) steadfastly refused to discuss peace with Sith government (Darth Council) members other than Ivan, a refusal which was emblematic of their attempts to create various arbitrary sticking points (like beer reviews) to keep us in the war, rather than to negotiate with any intentions to give us real peace.

So all and all, even if you think we were unreasonable in refusing to surrender to them on their beer review and related terms, you should recognize that our problems with Fark during peace negotiations went beyond just that.

[New Frontier]

Good luck, friends.

[Kryievla]

[quote name='Tick1' date='24 February 2010 - 02:12 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]

Oh wow, I was thinking that same thing. I don't even see why it's a necessary stipulation if you've beaten someone so badly that they have to surrender (in NSO's case, accept white peace) in the first place. They would be of limited effectiveness on return, as well as face a redeclaration and harsh terms if they did jump back in after being granted such leniency.

[jimbacher]

[quote name='Kryievla' date='24 February 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1267049847' post='2202091']
Oh wow, I was thinking that same thing. I don't even see why it's a necessary stipulation if you've beaten someone so badly that they have to surrender (in NSO's case, accept white peace) in the first place. They would be of limited effectiveness on return, as well as face a redeclaration and harsh terms if they did jump back in after being granted such leniency.
[/quote]

Not only that, but they are probably mostly in bill-lock, so how could they re-enter. A no re-entry clause is actually redundant at this point since most of NSO is in anarchy and probably bill-lock, so they counldn't declare wars anyways...

[Benjamin Arouet]

[quote name='jimbacher' date='24 February 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1267050442' post='2202105']
Not only that, but they are probably mostly in bill-lock, so how could they re-enter. A no re-entry clause is actually redundant at this point since most of NSO is in anarchy and probably bill-lock, so they counldn't declare wars anyways...
[/quote]

You guys are making quite the fine case to NSO for why it makes no sense not to agree to it, though I think we've moved somewhat beyond that particular issue.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1267049128' post='2202072']
Yeah, thanks for speaking up for him. I am sure he appreciates it.
[/quote]
I was curious to hear the answer. I apologize for posting 30 seconds too late.

[quote name='heggo' date='24 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1267049286' post='2202080']
It is worth noting that even when Fark offered us beer reviews and no re-entry as terms, they did not do so in good faith. Consider that in our initial negotiations they offered us these terms only to promptly declare war on our ally IRON. Their goal wasn't to give us peace, but rather to either force us to violate our treaty with IRON or stall us until our treaty obligations would force us back into the war for a time. [/quote]
I'm pretty sure Fark doesn't care if you violate or honor your treaty with IRON except as it pertains to defending their allies. It's the principle of the thing, isn't it? Fark would be letting down [i]their[/i] allies to let you withdraw, lick your wounds, then re-enter the conflict.

[quote]It is also worth noting that, during later negotiations, randomly (and some others, if I recall correctly) steadfastly refused to discuss peace with Sith government (Darth Council) members other than Ivan, a refusal which was emblematic of their attempts to create various arbitrary sticking points (like beer reviews) to keep us in the war, rather than to negotiate with any intentions to give us real peace.[/quote]
I bet if you just said that Moldavi was on vacation and Corinan was in charge they would've listened to you.

[Trinite]

[quote name='Kryievla' date='24 February 2010 - 05:13 PM' timestamp='1267049847' post='2202091']
Oh wow, I was thinking that same thing. I don't even see why it's a necessary stipulation if you've beaten someone so badly that they have to surrender (in NSO's case, accept white peace) in the first place. They would be of limited effectiveness on return, as well as face a redeclaration and harsh terms if they did jump back in after being granted such leniency.
[/quote]
Well they could get out of anarchy and collect, get everyone they need to in peace mode and then be able to attack down on targets when they re-enter. That's off the top of my head. If you're losing and someone offers the kind of white peace being discussed here, you would be crazy not to take it, especially if your foe is engaged elsewhere.

[Kryievla]

[quote name='Trinite' date='24 February 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1267051052' post='2202116']
Well they could get out of anarchy and collect, get everyone they need to in peace mode and then be able to attack down on targets when they re-enter. That's off the top of my head. If you're losing and someone offers the kind of white peace being discussed here, you would be crazy not to take it, especially if your foe is engaged elsewhere.
[/quote]

Heh. Were I them, I'd be all over it, it is a generous offer.

White peace is also a generous offer.

It's true, they could indeed do those things you said. They could make ghost declarations to get other folks in too. They could aid folks at war. They could commit acts of war in any number of ways. If they did, however, no one would give them such consideration again. I think they are well aware of the potential consequences.

I admit my bias; they have earned my respect with their commitment to their principles. It disturbs me to see them left to eternal war because they continue to uphold those principles, when there is a way to let them maintain those and still be relatively certain that they are no threat.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Trinite' date='24 February 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1267051052' post='2202116']
Well they could get out of anarchy and collect, get everyone they need to in peace mode and then be able to attack down on targets when they re-enter. That's off the top of my head. If you're losing and someone offers the kind of white peace being discussed here, you would be crazy not to take it, especially if your foe is engaged elsewhere.
[/quote]
I am just that crazy I guess.

Regardless, continuing to discuss it will not change the situation. Fark has stated that it has no plans to offer what we seek and we have stated that we will not accept what they have offered. End of story unless one side changes their mind. For me, that is impossible. Not because I emphatically disagree with the terms or because I am just being a prick, which I am, but because I have given my word that it will not be so to my members. Nothing will change that so far as I am concerned. Not pissed off Polars, not unhappy Farkers, nothing. It is a matter of resolve and yes, personal pride, in regards to honoring my word to my membership.

If my alliance decides that they wish to change their opinion on the issue then that is up to them.

[heggo]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='24 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267051033' post='2202115']
I'm pretty sure Fark doesn't care if you violate or honor your treaty with IRON except as it pertains to defending their allies. It's the principle of the thing, isn't it? Fark would be letting down [i]their[/i] allies to let you withdraw, lick your wounds, then re-enter the conflict.
[/quote]
Arcturus, you and I both know that negotiations don't occur in a vacuum. Maybe they didn't care, but even so you still can't simplify the situation down to "silly NSO didn't accept Fark's terms" given that their offer was being constructed in a context that it was an offer which we functionally had to refuse. Whether that context arose intentionally or by chance is, I suppose, not especially important.

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='24 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267051033' post='2202115']
I bet if you just said that Moldavi was on vacation and Corinan was in charge they would've listened to you.
[/quote]
And yet obstructionism is still obstructionism, especially when it is coupled with base taunts and insults.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1267049064' post='2202068']
Ah, my apologies. When I say Polar I mean Grub. The Emperor is the embodiment of the Order and I don't generally get my information from subordinates.
[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Grub has the authority to speak on behalf of Fark, CSN or even the Guru Order.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1267052659' post='2202141']
Regardless, continuing to discuss it will not change the situation. Fark has stated that it has no plans to offer what we seek and we have stated that we will not accept what they have offered. End of story unless one side changes their mind. For me, that is impossible. Not because I emphatically disagree with the terms or because I am just being a prick, which I am, but because I have given my word that it will not be so to my members. Nothing will change that so far as I am concerned. Not pissed off Polars, not unhappy Farkers, nothing. It is a matter of resolve and yes, personal pride, in regards to honoring my word to my membership.

If my alliance decides that they wish to change their opinion on the issue then that is up to them.
[/quote]

Good summary. I do respect your stance, foolhardy though it may be. I'd say "see you on the battlefield" but I think I'm done fighting for this war.

[Fantastico]

Between yesterday's memories and tomorrow's dreams, best wishes to both alliances.

[i]Through a river floats an acorn and on the shore sprouts a tree.[/i] -Pendolino IV

[JBone]

[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]
Seems like I have heard all of this somewhere before...oh yea, everyone said it to TPF near the end of Karma.

In the end, we surrendered, but we also got what [i]we wanted[/i] out of it......or more precisely, we [i]didn't have to do something[/i] that we were [i]fundamentally opposed to.[/i]

Perhaps the NSO will achieve the results they desire, perhaps not.

Much of that will depend on how much Fark and co. care about global perception, how much pressure is applied by others on "that side" and how creative NSO is willing to be.

I, for one, think they deserve to be allowed to leave the battle heads held high, defeated to be sure, but not humiliated for the sake of a few lulz.

Poor show indeed Farkistan.

[Krack]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1267037636' post='2201795']
NSO is a belligerent, rude, combative, and pedantic alliance. They always have been and always will be. That they continue to act like themselves during a war is no reason to refuse to grant them white peace.
[/quote]

Actually, that's a really good reason. You're making FARK's argument for them. They owe you a cookie.