Notice of Cancellation

[Riddick]

I fully agree with Ivan and NSO on this. Maybe if someone called polar names from GOD they wouldnt have
given white peace and got in this mess lol

[Penkala]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 February 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1267147806' post='2204116']
I believe the post Penky is referring to is this:
[/quote]

That's just one of 'em. There were more IIRC.

[quote]I'm unaware of when we signed a blood oath with the Grey Council. As to the others...

You're pretty clueless about our foreign affairs intentions. I can illuminate some of it. Let's start with MADPs.

The only MADP partners that Invicta has ever had are NATO and UPN. We signed the Purqua Power Pact during a time when noWedge threatened the existence of both UPN and Invicta, and NATO wanted to help us. Purqua was in essence a dare to noWedge to start a war and an assurance that NATO would be by our side in such an event.

noWedge predictably backed down. He was good with oppressing people like Lady Cierra, but he wasn't up for a real fight.

That would be the only "blood oath" we've ever signed.

As for NPO... We opposed the attack on OV. They didn't listen to us. We thought that they should have been treated the same way as TORN was, and if they had been, we'd have been a good deal more sympathetic to the complaints of the Karma coalition, most of whom knew perfectly well who the driving force behind the attack on OV was.

Heck... you don't know how close we were to actually being in Karma ourselves. But that's another story, and one that has a RL tragedy at the centre of it.

Anyway back to NPO. Frankly we were not that close to them before the Karma war, with the exception of, well, me - and I was close to certain individuals inside the Pacifican hierarchy, not to the organization as a whole.

We're a whole lot closer to them now. And, again speaking frankly, they've changed quite a bit. Whether it's because of liking us that they've changed or the reverse - they've changed so now they like us more - I can't say. But that's the fact.[/quote]

I'll save you some time: you can't elawyer your way out of defending the 'evil' side when it came down to 'good vs. evil' in the Karma war. That war was about which direction politics would go - back to viceroys and EZIs or forward to things like beer reviews and light reps. You chose to defend the viceroys and EZIs in an offensive war where you didn't have any treaties you had to honor (oA, right?).

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Penkala' date='26 February 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1267148109' post='2204124']
That's just one of 'em. There were more IIRC.



I'll save you some time: you can't elawyer your way out of defending the 'evil' side when it came down to 'good vs. evil' in the Karma war. That war was about which direction politics would go - back to viceroys and EZIs or forward to things like beer reviews and light reps. You chose to defend the viceroys and EZIs in an offensive war where you didn't have any treaties you had to honor (oA, right?).
[/quote]

Good and evil?

I think what you seem to forget is that Viceroys were out of style [ooc] banned to the point of them not being usable [OOC] and The EZI was only "magically" condemned by most of the Karma alliances a month or 2 before the war. What a coincidence.

Not to mention some alliances who fought in that war to this day pratice EZI(or PZI?), like your allies in GOD. Must be fun supporting the "evil" side right.

Edited February 26, 2010 by silentkiller

[Merrie Melodies]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='26 February 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1267147806' post='2204116']
I believe the post Penky is referring to is this:



Personally I dismiss it as simple war-time trash talk and think nothing of it.



You are wrong. TPF, Molon Labe and DOOM all surrendered to NSO during the Karma War.
[/quote]
I don't believe any actions were asked of them besides sitting out the war.

[Branimir]

People, just because some didn't update their propaganda material since the karma war, and are still spewing the same old crap, is not a reason to forget that the subject matter here is that NSO canceled a treaty with NpO.

In regards to the side topic which was developed, about NSO's peace negotiation status-- a lot of words were spend and views exchanged.
NSO rejected the last peace offer it received, and FARK (notably) isn't giving them any new ones. That is how it goes sometimes. So they fight, NSO now more alone since Grub left them-- again.

Just let it die now. Nothing can be said more.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Branimir

[The AUT]

[quote name='Fort Pitt' date='26 February 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1267147858' post='2204117']
I have nor the time nor the will to "prove it", it's mere recollection as you have stated, however I wasn't a dick about it like you were about proving your side in a case that was effectively dead, and you knew it.

It seems that Brendan has just proved my case. Now I ask you AUT to please resume your scheduled mindless picking and poking at people you've probably never heard of just to score points on your "team".
[/quote]

So you get all defensive because I ask you to prove something and say you don't need to and claim I'm nit-picking?

Lord Brendan dismissed it as "trash talk" it happens every war. If you make such a claim then you can expect to be challenged, sir.

[Fort Pitt]

I know I would be challenged, but at least someone with class, which clearly, you are not.

Call it what you want, you were wrong.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='25 February 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1267148562' post='2204136']
I don't believe any actions were asked of them besides sitting out the war.
[/quote]

The reason NSO is refusing to accept terms at the moment is because they don't want to say "surrender". Lo and behold:

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

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]
There was also a "lulz term" of $1 reparations, but that isn't particularly relevant.

Sooner or later we're probably just going to get bored with beating up the Sith and just let them off with the admission of defeat (essentially the same thing IMO) and if NSO believes the opportunity cost of spending that undetermined about of time in peace mode or anarchy is worth not having to say "surrender", then so be it.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[The AUT]

[quote name='Fort Pitt' date='26 February 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1267148863' post='2204149']
I know I would be challenged, but at least someone with class, which clearly, you are not.

Call it what you want, you were wrong.
[/quote]

Asking to provide proof is being wrong?

[quote]There was also a "lulz term" of $1 reparations[/quote]

Yeah I remember, mhawk sent 1$ to Ivan.

Edited February 26, 2010 by The AUT

[Fort Pitt]

I direct you here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81572&view=findpost&p=2204116 for your proof, your scroll bar must be broken.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Penkala' date='25 February 2010 - 08:31 PM' timestamp='1267148109' post='2204124']
I'll save you some time: you can't elawyer your way out of defending the 'evil' side when it came down to 'good vs. evil' in the Karma war. That war was about which direction politics would go - back to viceroys and EZIs or forward to things like beer reviews and light reps. You chose to defend the viceroys and EZIs in an offensive war where you didn't have any treaties you had to honor (oA, right?).
[/quote]
We had a chaining MDOAP to NPO actually. So yeah we had a treaty to honour; when they came under attack, we were bound to respond, and thanks to ODN, we had no contrary treaty to the other side.

If you think OV was attacked because NPO wanted to put a viceroy in place, you're even more clueless than you appear.

[Tomcat]

It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.

First of all, NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.

NSO.

Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.
You backed up your ally (IRON) in their attack.
NpO backed up their ally (MK) in their defense.

So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.
You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack. That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.

[Jake Liebenow]

They had no terms, other than joke terms, which were literally about as light-hearted as they come.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' date='25 February 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1267150227' post='2204193']
They had no terms, other than joke terms, which were literally about as light-hearted as they come.
[/quote]
Your own people view beer reviews as joke terms.

Pretty good post, Tomcat. But NSO has too much ego at stake to try and be fair to Polar at this point.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='26 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1267150152' post='2204191']
It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.

First of all, NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.

NSO.

Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.
You backed up your ally (IRON) in their attack.
NpO backed up their ally (MK) in their defense.

So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.
You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack. That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.
[/quote]

If you could be more wrong I think you'd be the most wrongiest man on Earth.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' date='25 February 2010 - 09:06 PM' timestamp='1267150227' post='2204193']
They had no terms, other than joke terms, which were literally about as light-hearted as they come.
[/quote]

Joke terms are evil, humiliating and hegemonic. Making anyone spend a few minutes of their time to do something trivial (such as sending $1 in aid or writing a small text) is the most cruel punishment imaginable. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

In regards to the NpO-NSO cancellation, I think NSO is justified in feeling betrayed. I've lost count of how many times Polar has changed sides in this war. Nobody deserves that, even the Sith.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 06:11 PM' timestamp='1267150505' post='2204204']
UR WRONG
[/quote]
Well then i guess you won't have any trouble refuting what I said.

Tell me how it [i]really[/i] is.

[Anthony]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='26 February 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1267150989' post='2204220']
Well then i guess you won't have any trouble refuting what I said.

Tell me how it [i]really[/i] is.
[/quote]

There's 38 pages of people explaining how it [i]really[/i] is. Take some time to read it.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267151045' post='2204221']
There's 38 pages of people explaining how it [i]really[/i] is. Take some time to read it.
[/quote]

Could you link me to the posts that refute these statements:
[b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b]
[b]
NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b]
[b]
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b]

[b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b]

[b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b]

[b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b]
[b]
So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b]

[b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b]

[b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b]

I'm not seeing these points being addressed, but if I've somehow missed them you're welcome to link me to the responses to these statements.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Anthony' date='25 February 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1267151045' post='2204221']
There's 38 pages of people explaining how it [i]really[/i] is. Take some time to read it.
[/quote]
Anthony that would mean he would have to look for info, and not spew crap that he can think of from the top of his head.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='25 February 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1267151347' post='2204236']
Could you link me to the posts that refute these statements:
[b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b]
[b]
NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b]
[b]
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b]

[b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b]

[b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b]

[b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b]
[b]
So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b]

[b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b]

[b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b]

I'm not seeing these points being addressed, but if I've somehow missed them you're welcome to link me to the responses to these statements.
[/quote]
Thats two strikes, maybe if you say enough times it might become true.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1267151350' post='2204237']
Anthony that would mean he would have to look for info, and not spew crap that he can think of from the top of his head.
[/quote]

And actually responding to my arguments might actually force you to write more than a one sentence reply.
I know, we both live in a tough world.

^^^ wow you beat me to it

Edited February 26, 2010 by Tomcat

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='25 February 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1267151519' post='2204241']
And actually responding to my arguments might actually force you to write more than a one sentence reply.
I know, we both live in a tough world.

^^^ wow you beat me to it
[/quote]
No point to argue with someone that had one goal in this announcement, and that was to attack our alliance.
Also nice one liner to you to my good sir.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krack' date='25 February 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1267139386' post='2203775']
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.
[/quote]

actually it was a war that Polaris started and they hit FOK who gave them white peace. Fark and GOD hit NSO. NSO then hit CSN to try and give a reprieve to STA who also got white peace. GO then hit NSO.

but no of course they are not based in reality whatsoever. i mean it is not like the prevailing attitude from the majority within CN for a while now has been that if you enter a war via treaty obligations you should get white peace. not to mention, in my opinion, hitting an alliance that has lost 70%+ of their original NS and then giving them what that alliance considers terms they cannot accept is just pathetic. they are obviously not a threat to anyone but we have 4 alliances that are continuing to pound them. i mean, that to me screams WUT/1V/friends pounding on FAN for so long. that screams GOONS pounding on Fark for so long. but hey, obviously Fark is all grown up as is CSN and despite the actions that have occurred to them in the past, they now wish to act like those who have destroyed them in the past.

[quote name='Krack' date='25 February 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1267141680' post='2203876']
No, I'm under the impression that your alliance will be beat on for the foreseeable future, that it is your alliance's own fault, and that FARK really doesn't care one way or the other. Having once been a member of FARK, I'm fairly confident they are happy to have war training targets for their new nations. If you prefer the option of getting beaten on by a much larger alliance in perpetuity rather than surrendering - good for you. At least they gave you the option to surrender before your alliance loses all its infrastructure.
[/quote]

man, i remember some other alliance saying something just like that. oh yeah, it was GOONS about Fark... again, you and others and especially Fark themselves are only simply portraying themselves in the worst possible light.

[quote name='Crowdog' date='25 February 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1267142592' post='2203919']
What I'm hearing is "it was ok when we did it, but when it's done to us it's not progressing Bob any further." And that was the point of karma, in essence, we did not fail. We educated. But this current war is a new situation completely. Before this, beyond Flying Tigers valiant efforts, no alliance went offensive and lost which is what NSO, IRON, TOP, TORN, etc. have all done. Declaring the offensive war and losing is something that hasn't happened and therefore deserves new consequences. So it's not that "our side isn't moving Bob forward" as much as we're adapting to the attempts to do so of the other side. We have every reason to fight aggression with aggression. And in regards to Farks term holdout if you will, the terms offered are nothing compared to what used to happen on Bob. That's progressive enough for them, and it works for me.

Like I said though, NSO has already admitted defeat. Whether they surrender or end hostilities doesn't change this war from the loss column to the draw column in most people's minds. It's delusional to say that the title you give to NSO's exit from the war will change the outcome. Unless of course SF surrenders.
[/quote]

again, NSO did not go offensive and thus cannot be lumped in with TOP, IRON, or TORN.

[quote name='Penkala' date='25 February 2010 - 06:18 PM' timestamp='1267143746' post='2203976']
Thanks for the kind thoughts, but we back Fark. They're being completely fair to NSO. NSO is going to need to deal with being defeated. You don't make demands when you're the one asking for mercy. And no, that's not 'hegemony-like' for me to say that. It would be if I were saying "you don't get to ask to avoid a viceroy when you surrender. You submit "

I don't speak for CSN officially, but I can safely say I speak for us when I say that we back Fark's actions in this war and support them unconditionally. They've done nothing wrong.
[/quote]

wow, just like ya'll !@#$%* about Karma being misused, ya'll only tag things like 100k tech payments or 1 billion dollar reps or viceroys with the Heg. as part of the former Heg from the beginning until the SPW/WoTC, hegemonic terms are more synonymous with humiliating your enemy. sure draconian terms are part of it but not always. what Fark is doing and CSN is liking is humiliating their enemy. again, that is not respectful and in my opinion an honorable alliance would not conduct themselves as Fark has done. GOD and CSN threw around white peace at least. Fark never did and seemed to only want to humiliate NSO even though the whole reason they were in the war (i.e. FOK) had already given white peace to NSO.

so no, Fark has done a lot wrong. if they ask for reps of any kind that is just making them more dishonorable and pathetic and if CSN supports them unconditionally, then that dishonorable and pathetic action applies as much to CSN as it does to Fark. i remember a time when CSN took a stand with an alliance getting crushed and was angry at the terms that came at the end of that war. (GATO-1V) yet now, they seem to love humiliating an enemy if this war is indicative of their future.

[quote name='AirMe' date='25 February 2010 - 06:33 PM' timestamp='1267144628' post='2204009']
Until FARK offers other terms you and others are jumping the gun here.
[/quote]

to be honest, they don't need to do that for the comparison. in my mind, the fact that they went through that harshness and are now more than willing to even begin something similar is more than enough. there is no need for anything but the fact that Fark wishes to try and humiliate NSO or put them through a long war for no reason. it does not have to be exact in order to work. so Fark is a bit better than GOONS because they have not issued harsh terms, does not mean they are not like GOONS though. just not fully. but heck, from what i hear reps are around the corner, so who knows... they may just complete the similarity in everything but name. at this point, i would not put it past them, that is how low they have sunk.

[quote name='Penkala' date='25 February 2010 - 06:39 PM' timestamp='1267144981' post='2204016']
[19:33:15] <+Penkala[CSN]> the Hegemony's !@#$%*ing about a Beer review has been noted and disregarded
[19:33:19] <+Penkala[CSN]> <censoredlol>
[19:34:05] <+Penkala[CSN]> I wish I could disband half a dozen alliances, hold 3-4 viceroys, then whine about having to post a beer review

Seriously. Read DrunkWino's blog. You're ruining all your credibility by crying about literally nothing. NSO had an opportunity to [i]post a beer review[/i], [i]in exchange for a review by Fark[/i], and turned it down. And you have the [i]gall[/i] to [u]complain[/u] after what you have done to others. This is literally unbelievable
[/quote]

ooc: so wait, NSO rejected an OOC term that required them to go out and do something completely unrelated to CN and then post on the CN forums about something completely unrelated to the game in order to gain peace in an entirely IC aspect of the game? not to mention they were told that this term would indicate that they surrender to Fark, which is something they are unwilling to do.

yeah, i would compare a beer review to TPF telling NoV that they had to swear an oath they are not RL nazis because it has something entirely unrelated to CN as a game and only something related to OOC. some people (like me) do not want to bring in OOC crap into this game. others don't mind. i don't go around stating, "zomg alliance x is so horrible for bringing OOC crap into this game, they are ruining it entirely and Fark is to blame for forcing it upon them" if alliance x actually does not care about the term.

but the moment ya'll start forcing that term on someone (which is what ya'll want) then it becomes a draconian term. if it is forced, it is not a light term at all regardless of what is generally thought. terms that are typically forced on an alliance are usually viceroys and the like, thus, the fact that ya'll keep stating that NSO [i]had[/i] to take this term to get peace starts shoving it into the draconian column. if it was supposed to be this easy-going, light term then how come it was pushed so hard?

[quote name='Penkala' date='25 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1267145285' post='2204024']
They didn't. You and your friends did. You and your friends are now whining about a single beer review. It's laughable, really. If you're going to keep bawwwing about 'UNFAIR TERMS MEAN HEGEMONYISTS GRRRRRRRR I'D RATHER DISBAND HOW DEGRADING' nobody will ever take you seriously if you do face real unfair terms. You're shooting yourselves in the foot to baww about a beer review. Seriously.

Edit: when NSO thought they would win they talked openly about disbanding GOD. I have no pity on them. We will continue to destroy their terrible alliance until they are ready to submit. It's really that simple. Losers don't threaten to kill off winners forever, then demand white peace when they lose. We'd be perfectly within our rights to fight NSO to disbandment, citing their threats to do so to us as an imminent and permanent threat to our existence. You guys would have done that back in the day. Instead, all we asked was a beer review. A simple beer review in response to their threats to disband us and kill us off. And you call us harsh. It's simply beyond belief.
[/quote]

who is stating anything about disbanding? also, the beer review is off the table and NSO is now waiting on other terms Fark are deciding. but honestly, ya'll (as in your side) have yet to answer the simple question of, "if it is [i]just[/i] a beer review and thus, entirely a small and minor issue why not just take it out then?" obviously your side seems to think it is a throwaway term in essence. a term that is sooooooooo light and casual that if anyone did have an issue with it for whatever reason, it should have been easy to say "$%&@ it, this term does not matter really" and yet, ya'll seem to be incapable of that. it seems to have soooooooooo much more significance than that in ya'lls eyes. the fact that you sit there !@#$%*ing about how NSO could [b]not[/b] have taken it shows that there was never any kind of discussion that the term just be removed, again especially if it is supposed to be this ultra-easy and light term.

kinda shows your mentality about it that you are willing to put an alliance into a longer state of war over such a "throwaway" term as a beer review. yeah, entirely not hegemonic at all.

[quote name='steodonn' date='25 February 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1267145474' post='2204031']
They have offered quite good terms. Of course NSO can refuse all they but saying that FARK dosent seek an end to war with these terms is outrageous. They are good terms if you dont like them by all means fight on its your right and if the membership of NSO agrees then no one has the right to complain but don't try paint FARK as the bad guys after they offered pretty much the going terms in the war
[/quote]

obviously not to NSO. NSO rejected on term but are more than willing to go with the admission of defeat and the no re-entry as of this thread. if Fark were such wonderful guys, they would not have ended diplomacy over the rejection of a single term. so it is not that hard to paint Fark as a bad guy when their actions show them to be that way. if Fark were such good guys, they would have given white peace the moment that FOK gave NSO white peace instead of seeking to give terms when none were necessary. especially since GOD and CSN were more than willing to do white peace. so yeah, Fark not looking so good at all.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 February 2010 - 07:45 PM' timestamp='1267148918' post='2204152']
The reason NSO is refusing to accept terms at the moment is because they don't want to say "surrender". Lo and behold:


There was also a "lulz term" of $1 reparations, but that isn't particularly relevant.

Sooner or later we're probably just going to get bored with beating up the Sith and just let them off with the admission of defeat (essentially the same thing IMO) and if NSO believes the opportunity cost of spending that undetermined about of time in peace mode or anarchy is worth not having to say "surrender", then so be it.
[/quote]

Terra-Cotta Pact just kinda jumped out at me. thus, these terms are ones offered by a bloc and not just NSO. i remember others signing onto surrender terms that were not entirely agreeable with them because their allies sought those terms. whether this is the case or not, the terms were thought of as a bloc and not individual alliance. as for lulz terms- i am not entirely sure i ever saw NSO state they hated lulz terms, just that they would not do a beer review for whatever reason. so, the fact that ya'll keep attacking all lulz terms to NSO and then bringing up the $1 term shows that ya'll need to shut it on that topic. it is obvious that NSO has nothing against lulz terms at all and only against that beer review. but ya'll keep trying. maybe soon you will actually make NSO look as bad as Fark and CSN do right now.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 February 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1267150636' post='2204208']
Joke terms are evil, humiliating and hegemonic. Making anyone spend a few minutes of their time to do something trivial (such as sending $1 in aid or writing a small text) is the most cruel punishment imaginable. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

In regards to the NpO-NSO cancellation, I think NSO is justified in feeling betrayed. I've lost count of how many times Polar has changed sides in this war. Nobody deserves that, even the Sith.
[/quote]

if you really wish to go there, tell me which one of these terms are IC and which is not?

send $1 reparation in game
write a beer review

[quote name='Tomcat' date='25 February 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1267151347' post='2204236']
Could you link me to the posts that refute these statements:
[b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b]
[b]
NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b]
[b]
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b]

[b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b]

[b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b]

[b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b]
[b]
So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b]

[b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b]

[b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b]

I'm not seeing these points being addressed, but if I've somehow missed them you're welcome to link me to the responses to these statements.
[/quote]

actually, almost all of those have been addressed through the 48 pages of thread. read it all and you will have the answers you seek. the fact that you have not seen these points addressed shows that you did not read this thread.