Notice of Cancellation

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1267124657' post='2203289']
Ok, see that doesn't answer my question. I'll clarify. Those logs simply state that Jim was calling the peace deal your surrender because it looks like, from those same logs, you are trying to get out of it as a simple white peace without having to call it a defeat. You may not have meant it that way, and I don't know if you did or not, but that it how it looks. So, at any point did you or have you gone back and said "look it is really the connotation of the word 'surrender' we don't like. We by no means intend to claim you didn't emerge victorious in our fight, but we don't want to surrender. Is there some middle ground we can find here?"

Did that ever happen? Is that ever going to happen? Or are you simply banking on the fact that, in all likelihood, you will irritate Fark to the point where such a compromise is no longer an option and you won't have to feel bad for not thinking of it earlier?
[/quote]
Are you stating that Jim had a premonition in regards to those logs because he stated it was a surrender prior to my elaboration on the refusal of terms?

As for going back, since we are not willing to do the review, does it matter?

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='King DrunkWino' date='25 February 2010 - 01:15 PM' timestamp='1267121916' post='2203227']
It doesn't, at least I don't think. All this running in circles has me confused. I'm sitting out next dance and drinking a beer. Wanna review?
[/quote]
Lets do it.

Also @Ivan: Your logs come after my logs, which isn't proving your point my friend. Those initial logs I mentioned are the ones in which you left stating everything was good so long as IRON was alright with it, which they were. Those logs are AFTER you changed your opinion, which coincidentally is WHY people are upset with the bouncing about. You made a mistake in stating what your alliance would do, and as you've said before, if anyone doesn't like your ruling in your alliance, they can leave. I do not see how you find it completely unreasonable for those in FARK to be upset with you.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 February 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1267124785' post='2203292']
I notice you didn't restate your refusal to surrender - presumably it is included as "humiliating"?

What about resigning? Withdrawing? Giving up/in? Capitulating? Yielding? Submitting? Folding? Conceding? Relinquishing? Are any of these words acceptable as a substitute for 'surrender'?

We could even use the USN method and say you "leave the field to us".
[/quote]
Considering our reasons for being in this war to begin with I believe an admission of my alliance's defeat, something that I have never done anywhere, is sufficient.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='25 February 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1267125648' post='2203316']
Lets do it.

Also @Ivan: Your logs come after my logs, which isn't proving your point my friend. Those initial logs I mentioned are the ones in which you left stating everything was good so long as IRON was alright with it, which they were. Those logs are AFTER you changed your opinion, which coincidentally is WHY people are upset with the bouncing about. You made a mistake in stating what your alliance would do, and as you've said before, if anyone doesn't like your ruling in your alliance, they can leave. I do not see how you find it completely unreasonable for those in FARK to be upset with you.
[/quote]
Perhaps you should do some research on what negotiating means. I rejected their terms after discussion. So what? Until they are posted they are not final. That has been a generally accepted rule of thumb here forever.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:17 PM' timestamp='1267125639' post='2203314']
Are you stating that Jim had a premonition in regards to those logs because he stated it was a surrender prior to my elaboration on the refusal of terms?

As for going back, since we are not willing to do the review, does it matter?
[/quote]


We're back to the review, that was taken off the table now...what, almost 20 pages back?

Let me distill the very essence of what I've been trying to convey to you (and to the silent readers out there who might actually be able to, you know, listen). Thus:

[b]IF[/b] you want peace, and want a better peace offer than you previously were given, you need to do two things: 1)Cease making posts on the OWF that your opponents could/would take offense at. and 2)GO TALK TO THEM. Be prepared to accept compromises. Be flexible.

If you [b]DON'T[/b] want peace, say so publicly, so that we can put an end to people lamenting that you're being kept in a war against your will.

[ChimpMasterFlash]

o/ BEER REVIEW.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:19 PM' timestamp='1267125773' post='2203321']
Considering our reasons for being in this war to begin with I believe an admission of my alliance's defeat, something that I have never done anywhere, is sufficient.
[/quote]

How is that so different from saying, for example, "the NSO yields and admits defeat..."?

[x Tela x]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1267125843' post='2203325']
Perhaps you should do some research on what negotiating means. I rejected their terms after discussion. So what? Until they are posted they are not final. That has been a generally accepted rule of thumb here forever.
[/quote]

Unless you're Sparta.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1267126313' post='2203336']
We're back to the review, that was taken off the table now...what, almost 20 pages back?

Let me distill the very essence of what I've been trying to convey to you (and to the silent readers out there who might actually be able to, you know, listen). Thus:

[b]IF[/b] you want peace, and want a better peace offer than you previously were given, you need to do two things: 1)Cease making posts on the OWF that your opponents could/would take offense at. and 2)GO TALK TO THEM. Be prepared to accept compromises. Be flexible.

If you [b]DON'T[/b] want peace, say so publicly, so that we can put an end to people lamenting that you're being kept in a war against your will.
[/quote]
Oh yes, because attempting to be patronizing towards me makes you the bigger person here, right?

I have been told by Fark not to call them, that they will call us when they are ready. When you couple that with no terms being on the table from your side currently at all and my posts here outlining a potential peace agreement I have to just ask what more you think I should do while Fark decides when they will present terms?

Also, since they refuse to talk to or convey anything through my govt how do you think that is going to happen considering my infrequent use of IRC?

[Lennox]

Why is CSN so intent on discussing surrender terms in a thread about a treaty cancellation? Its the same few faces that can't seem to let something go.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1267124819' post='2203294']
More people going to declare on us? lol I can't wait to see those reasons.
[/quote]

We could swing round after the TOOL front closes if it makes you happy, we do have that MADP with GOD.


[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1267125843' post='2203325']
Perhaps you should do some research on what negotiating means. I rejected their terms after discussion. So what? Until they are posted they are not final. That has been a generally accepted rule of thumb here forever.
[/quote]

To a point, re-negotiating their offer implies you have something to offer in return. When An alliance has been sufficiently crushed on the field of battle frequently the only realistic option is to take whatever is offered.

Though you could always go the TPF route and hope that if you've been curbed stomped long enough people will just take pity on you and let you walk. But that's pretty much the definition of Pyrrhic victory right there.

Edited February 25, 2010 by TypoNinja

[Fantastico]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 01:28 PM' timestamp='1267126313' post='2203336']
We're back to the review, that was taken off the table now...what, almost 20 pages back?

Cease making posts on the OWF that your opponents could/would take offense at.
[/quote]

Instead of speaking through proxies like yourself, maybe it's time for Fark to reconsider its boycott of this diplomatic venue? They even could start their own topic of what the NSO needs for peace with them, too.

[Mentor]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1267123138' post='2203252']
Please point me to one single post in which I state that I am the only person in NSO that can make decisions.
[/quote]

<Guruland[GO]> i am just saying that this beer review thing is not worth it
<Guruland[GO]> Fark has had that term on everyone so far in this war
<Anthony> Ivan's position on the beer review stands

Note, he did say YOUR position stands, not the NSO'.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1267123138' post='2203252']
We didn't "re-declare" on Fark.
[/quote]

O yeah and what exactly you call this then?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79546

Also in the above topic you clearly state that you DO NOT want any support of your allies in this war, NpO was the only alliance which did help (attacking GOD) so you go ahead to cancel the treaty with them.

Anyway, good luck with your war, got nothing else to add to this topic

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Fantastico' date='25 February 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1267128066' post='2203365']
Instead of speaking through proxies like yourself, maybe it's time for Fark to reconsider its boycott of this diplomatic venue? They even could start their own topic of what the NSO needs for peace with them, too.
[/quote]

I've only been in here because I saw an ugly trend of people accepting as true baseless accusations and incorrect suppositions against my friends and former alliance mates. I sought to correct that. Then I tried to offer earnest advice to Ivan about how to best approach people I still know rather well, and I admit my frustration at being run around in circles by him to have resulted in me washing my hands of him. Which I do of this entire thread now. If you need me, I'll be watching women's curling.

[Reason]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 February 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1267126578' post='2203341']
How is that so different from saying, for example, "the NSO yields and admits defeat..."?
[/quote]
Listen, I know you guys here on the OWF don't differentiate between 'admit defeat' and 'surrender'. Let me attempt to elaborate the difference so you will understand. To admit defeat means one is bowing out of the fight and that both parties agree the fight has run its course but that they will exit honourably with no terms on one another. A surrender implies that one is bowing to the authority of the other when the fight ends, which can be via additional terms or simply in the language - both consist by asking an alliance to accept something against its will.

Most people come into this thread assuming that either is fine. Moreover, I do not think any of you understand fully what it means to exist by a set of strong, individual principles as NSO does and what that means for their actions, so let me tell you. First off, to have principles means one never surrenders them - to anyone or anything. Secondly, to have principles means that one does not compromise them to others because a compromise is a surrender. Finally, to have principles means that, when others fail to accept or respond to them, one does not change them to the expediency of the moment - if you change your principles on the flip of a coin, then you have none truly at all. Nation strength and infrastructure over purpose? Please, save it for empty shells I dare not call men.

What this all declares is that, flying in the collective face of the peanut gallery, NSO is not e-lawyering nor is NSO changing terminology but that is precisely what the opposition [b]is[/b] doing. Semantics do matter, unfortunately, because words have meanings; when you purposely change the terminology from one of just admitting defeat you must be aiming to make it into something more and that can only mean surrender.

NSO's principles consist of specifically not bending-over to the collective sneer but rather of individual achievement and thus consist of success through individual merit not through the treaty web. NSO exists, as its membership has told the Dark Lord, to stand for honour in friendship and purpose in both being and action. Only by following these ideas have we even arrived here at this precise moment. All that is asked is that the enemies on the battlefield have the dignity to accept or reject the offer of white peace and relinquish their strawmen and red herrings. So, Fark, do you or do you not accept Ivan's offer of white peace? Nothing else matters.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Pedron Niall

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1267124819' post='2203294']
More people going to declare on us? lol I can't wait to see those reasons.
[/quote]

To be honest, no. Would I be surprised? Not really. This war is a cluster$%&@ in of itself, so there were/are declarations going left and right.

[quote name='Lennox' date='25 February 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1267127137' post='2203348']
Why is CSN so intent on discussing surrender terms in a thread about a treaty cancellation? Its the same few faces that can't seem to let something go.
[/quote]

We didn't start the debate, and to be honest this isn't the venue for it. I agree in that regard. The main point of Impavid's arguments at the very least, is debunking several false accusations made by several parties (read his post).

[chefjoe]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1267128785' post='2203381']
I've only been in here because I saw an ugly trend of people accepting as true baseless accusations and incorrect suppositions against my friends and former alliance mates. I sought to correct that. Then I tried to offer earnest advice to Ivan about how to best approach people I still know rather well, and I admit my frustration at being run around in circles by him to have resulted in me washing my hands of him. Which I do of this entire thread now. If you need me, [b]I'll be watching women's curling[/b].
[/quote]

[ooc]Ya know, those gals are pretty damn hot. I never realized curling had such a MILF factor. Then again I had never watched it before lol [/ooc]

On topic, BAD FARK........BAD Ivan.......Instead of just reviewing the beer, this situation might be better served if quite a few were DRANK first instead.

[Heft]

[quote name='Mentor' date='25 February 2010 - 02:06 PM' timestamp='1267128575' post='2203379']
<Guruland[GO]> i am just saying that this beer review thing is not worth it
<Guruland[GO]> Fark has had that term on everyone so far in this war
<Anthony> Ivan's position on the beer review stands

Note, he did say YOUR position stands, not the NSO'.
[/quote]
I read this, and then what you were responding to. Then I blinked a few times. Then I laughed.

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1267128785' post='2203381']
I've only been in here because I saw an ugly trend of people accepting as true baseless accusations and incorrect suppositions against my friends and former alliance mates. I sought to correct that. Then I tried to offer earnest advice to Ivan about how to best approach people I still know rather well, and I admit my frustration at being run around in circles by him to have resulted in me washing my hands of him. Which I do of this entire thread now. If you need me, I'll be watching women's curling.
[/quote]
I suppose it's possible that you've been making a genuine good faith effort to offer helpful advice, or whatnot. But most of what you've been saying seems to be borne out of faulty assumptions or misunderstanding and generally hasn't really reflected the reality of the situation, thus making the utility of your suggestions more or less null, and also causing your repeated insistence that we listen to you and do whatever it is you want us to do to become aggravating and grating.

Women's curling is cool, though.

[Anthony]

I'd review a women's curling match. Future opponents keep that in mind.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1267128785' post='2203381']
I've only been in here because I saw an ugly trend of people accepting as true baseless accusations and incorrect suppositions against my friends and former alliance mates. I sought to correct that. Then I tried to offer earnest advice to Ivan about how to best approach people I still know rather well, and I admit my frustration at being run around in circles by him to have resulted in me washing my hands of him. Which I do of this entire thread now. If you need me, I'll be watching women's curling.
[/quote]

sad thing for you is, they are not baseless accusations. Fark offered terms that were rejected and instead of continuing negotations and attempting to get the middle ground, they stopped diplomacy altogether and stated that they will get back to NSO whenever they feel like.

looks like Fark is just power-hungry and pathetic in my opinion and the fact that CSN is in here trying to salvage a situation that Fark screwed up royally, while being a good ally to Fark is only showing that CSN feels that a crushed alliance does not deserve respect at all and should take whatever terms are shoved down their throat regardless of how the defeated feels about the terms. that is just awes---pathetic as well.

i think that CSN, GO, and GOD should be in the back room telling Fark that they are !@#$@#$ up and that Fark needs to get back to the table but it seems ya'll think that crushing NSO is worth the damage to your PR. soon, maybe ya'lls PR will make what Grub did look good.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Mentor' date='25 February 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1267128575' post='2203379']
<Guruland[GO]> i am just saying that this beer review thing is not worth it
<Guruland[GO]> Fark has had that term on everyone so far in this war
<Anthony> Ivan's position on the beer review stands

Note, he did say YOUR position stands, not the NSO'.

[/quote]

Ivan is the sovereign of NSO, much like Grub is the sovereign of Polar and Cortath is the sovereign of Pacifica. His position is the position of NSO.

[Krack]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='25 February 2010 - 07:03 AM' timestamp='1267103240' post='2202946']
I thought part of the point of Karma was to end the forcing of OOC terms backed up by the threat of eternal war. Apparently I was wrong.
[/quote]

You were wrong.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Krack

[Krack]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 February 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1267137260' post='2203696']
looks like Fark is just power-hungry and pathetic in my opinion and the fact that CSN is in here trying to salvage a situation that Fark screwed up royally, while being a good ally to Fark is only showing that CSN feels that a crushed alliance does not deserve respect at all and should take whatever terms are shoved down their throat regardless of how the defeated feels about the terms. that is just awes---pathetic as well.
[/quote]

What bizarro world do you live in that you think NSO should be able to dictate terms to FARK in a war that they started and lost? I mean, your comments have no basis in reality.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Krack' date='25 February 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1267138665' post='2203750']
You were wrong.
[/quote]
Note that that was sarcasm. Man you guys.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1267125843' post='2203325']
Perhaps you should do some research on what negotiating means. I rejected their terms after discussion. So what? Until they are posted they are not final. That has been a generally accepted rule of thumb here forever.
[/quote]
Perhaps you should do research on the diplomatic aspect of negotiations. Misleading your adversaries who are giving lenient terms cause situations like these. Yes, I get it Ivan, you later denied the terms, but it still doesn't change the fact you initially agreed to them. Instead, you're dancing around logic and spinning it as "Nothing is final till it is final." Okay, congratulations mate, but nonetheless you still mislead people in doing so. You weren't careful enough and later decided to listen to your members, okay, I got that as well, but you still changed your mind. People aren't so pissed you changed your mind, its because you simply cannot admit your own misleading mistake because, as you put it, you're stubborn.

I see neither convincing the other, but I wish NSO the best of luck. I'd hate to see your alliance perish over mere semantics, good luck in the coming talks. Cheers.