Notice of Cancellation

[pezstar]

[quote name='Crymson' date='24 February 2010 - 01:37 AM' timestamp='1266993647' post='2200890']
That's pretty hilarious, given that even Grub said he considered them part of the same war.
[/quote]


It doesn't really matter what Grub said. It matters how C&G see it, as you attacked them.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 03:10 AM' timestamp='1266999239' post='2201130']
It doesn't really matter what Grub said. It matters how C&G see it, as you attacked them.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Or rather it matters how CnG sees it because they're the ones winning. If TOP and Co. were winning then CnG's opinion would be irrelevant. Really, an opinion only matters if it can be backed up.[/color]

[Joe Stupid]

I'm happy to see this. This is one treaty polar could do without.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='23 February 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1266993883' post='2200916']
Oh, you mean my alliance being pissed that the allies that we entered to defend went to peace and left us holding the bag? Yeah, you are completely justified in crediting us with that as a "bad move" on our part.

Good job.

I am beginning to believe that it is a systemic issue in Polar instead of a policy one if you are the best they have in this regard.
[/quote]

Zombie Glaucon has never been known for acknowledging any misdeeds on the part of his alliance. In any discussion that involves Polaris, it's always him doing a bunch of fingerpointing with a complete lack of reference to how his alliance's poor conduct fits into the situation (possibly because he realizes it would leave his arguments with no ground to stand on).

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='23 February 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1266993911' post='2200920']
Such bitterness Crymson. I would change my name to Almighty Grub the Psychopathic Liar, but I am too lazy.
[/quote]

Yeah, that's probably another lie.

[quote name='Epiphanus' date='23 February 2010 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1266994199' post='2200938']
The old adage: "Before you point out the splinter in someone's eye, remove the stump from your own." comes to mind in this situation.
[/quote]

Oh, interesting. What have I not taken responsibility for?

Also, I'd love the opportunity to sit down with you so that you could go over what instances of repeated lying (or any lying) and outright backstabbing I've engaged in. In lieu of that, please dismount from your proverbial lofty equine companion.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Crymson

[Crymson]

Double post

Edited February 24, 2010 by Crymson

[Jinnai]

Cancelling a treaty a is never good and never easy when you have had a good relationship in the past. Best wishes to NSO.

[pezstar]

[quote name='Elyat' date='24 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1266994212' post='2200940']
I'm saying that Dopp has perpetrated a number of the blunders that caused the breakdown of relations between NpO and NSO; while NpO's errors can be measured in the last month, those of NSO stretch back to the foundation of Frostbite. This conclusion was determined when NSO chose IRON over NpO and STA.
[/quote]

You have no idea what you are talking about in this situation. At no point during the existence of Frostbite did NSO choose ANYONE over STA. First of all, they were never put into the position to have to make that choice. Second of all, in the event that finally convinced us to fold on Frostbite, it could actually be said that STA chose MK over the wishes of NSO. This was the ridiculous Athens situation, when they went and raided KoN. MK let us know that we may be called upon. We agreed to fight in their defense. NSO felt they had been aggrieved by a different party in a different situation, and were interested in fighting on a different front. Because the fact that we, as a bloc, were considering fighting on different fronts, we mutually decided that the bloc wasn't a good idea anymore, so we all canceled it. Just for the record, that cancellation was on good terms.

NSO gets a lot of crap from people on these forums. Very little of it is actually deserved. NSO never, not once, not even after we weren't allied anymore, chose anyone over us. In fact, they declared on CSN in defense of STA well after we weren't allied anymore.

While we're on the topic, I've got it from multiple solid sources that Fark intends to request reps from NSO when they are ready for peace. That really needs to not be true. They've offered completely white peace to multiple combatant alliances, yet refuse to offer it to NSO. This is a load of crap.

[Kryievla]

[quote name='Goose' date='24 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1266996195' post='2201056']
No one from NSO has contacted me since the STA peace agreement. From my understanding, the terms remain the same as they were at that point, as far as I know.

1. Peace for all involved with NSO
2. NSO remains neutral for the remainder of the conflict
3. NSO writes 1 beer review

NSO remains at war because they choose to do so. Not because of some horrible plot from those they are fighting to keep them involved.
[/quote]

They appear to find that term (beer review) degrading. Did your alliance not fight a war (alongside FARK I might add) in part to end humiliating terms?

[Zombie Glaucon]

[quote name='Crymson' date='24 February 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1266999557' post='2201136']
Zombie Glaucon has never been known for acknowledging any misdeeds on the part of his alliance. In any discussion that involves Polaris, it's always him doing a bunch of fingerpointing with a complete lack of reference to how his alliance's poor conduct fits into the situation (possibly because he realizes it would leave his arguments with no ground to stand on).
[/quote]

Hey man, I know it's convenient for you to say this, but you're high off your $@! if you think I've never disagreed with my alliance in public.

[TypoNinja]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1267000183' post='2201143']
While we're on the topic, I've got it from multiple solid sources that Fark intends to request reps from NSO when they are ready for peace. That really needs to not be true. They've offered completely white peace to multiple combatant alliances, yet refuse to offer it to NSO. This is a load of crap.
[/quote]

Why? Would you assert that each situation is identical? Situations change, and so do the terms. A variety of factors influence what if any terms are presented. Perhaps NSO has earned whatever is coming to them?

Lets look at it another way, NSO declared in support of an aggressive war/preemptive strike, what part of that action earns them white peace?

Should not we as a community be attempting to depress that kind of behavior? While our opponents may not take our wishes into account, perhaps with enough consequences spread around, in the future the next time someone contemplates a war of aggression their allies will put pressure on them not to do so.

[mhawk]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='24 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1267001315' post='2201158']


Lets look at it another way, NSO declared in support of an aggressive war/preemptive strike, what part of that action earns them white peace?

Should not we as a community be attempting to depress that kind of behavior?
[/quote]
It doesn't make much sense to try to punish "supporting an alliance that did an aggressive/preemptive strike" while granting white peace twice to the alliance that actually launched the strike.

[Weirdgus]

Sad, but necessary.

Best of luck, NSO

[heggo]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='24 February 2010 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1267001315' post='2201158']
Lets look at it another way, NSO declared in support of an aggressive war/preemptive strike, what part of that action earns them white peace?


[/quote]
We already were at war with Fark before any actions taken by TOP/IRON, actions which we are on record as having advised against. If it's the second declaration of ours that is confusing you, that was merely a move to get our allies in TC and Hydra out of the obligation to support us, as we did not want to risk leaving them stranded in the war with us.

[pezstar]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='24 February 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1267001315' post='2201158']
Why? Would you assert that each situation is identical? Situations change, and so do the terms. A variety of factors influence what if any terms are presented. Perhaps NSO has earned whatever is coming to them?

Lets look at it another way, NSO declared in support of an aggressive war/preemptive strike, what part of that action earns them white peace?

Should not we as a community be attempting to depress that kind of behavior? While our opponents may not take our wishes into account, perhaps with enough consequences spread around, in the future the next time someone contemplates a war of aggression their allies will put pressure on them not to do so.
[/quote]


That's not what actually happened, though. What actually happened was as follows: In the \m/-NpO war NSO declared on FOK in defense of NpO. In response, Fark declared on NSO. When peace was declared by NpO and \m/, Fark declined to give white peace to NSO, and so NSO's allies would not leave the war until that happened. NSO wouldn't accept the terms offered by Fark because they were unwilling to surrender and accept any terms. Fark's terms were that NSO agree not to enter the new conflict, as well as do a beer review. Because Fark didn't require this beer review of everyone else, and because NSO was unsure whether or not they were going to be needed in the conflict, they declined, wanting the same white peace granted to other combatants.

Because they were stuck in a war with Fark, and because that trapped their allies at war with them, NSO did an incredibly generous thing and decided that the best course of action would be to just turn it around and call their war with Fark a war in defense of IRON, as at this point Fark had declared on NSO's allies in IRON. That way, those who were fighting alongside of NSO in the previous conflict would be free to rebuild or do whatever they needed to do.

So no. NSO does not deserve to be punished. NSO deserves to be praised.

-

[heggo]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1267001807' post='2201167']
When peace was declared by NpO and \m/, Fark declined to give white peace to NSO, and so NSO's allies would not leave the war until that happened.
[/quote]
Not only that, but I doubt Fark even had a good faith involvement in those negotiations: it seems that they stalled in those negotiations right until the point that they declared on IRON, after which our peacing with them would also require abandoning an ally.

[ChesterStevensDevonn]

LOL this is very epic in my opinion NSO keep up the EPIC work

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='pezstar' date='24 February 2010 - 06:53 PM' timestamp='1267001807' post='2201167']
That's not what actually happened, though. What actually happened was as follows: In the \m/-NpO war NSO declared on FOK in defense of NpO. In response, Fark declared on NSO. When peace was declared by NpO and \m/, Fark declined to give white peace to NSO, and so NSO's allies would not leave the war until that happened. NSO wouldn't accept the terms offered by Fark because they were unwilling to surrender and accept any terms. Fark's terms were that NSO agree not to enter the new conflict, as well as do a beer review. Because Fark didn't require this beer review of everyone else, and because NSO was unsure whether or not they were going to be needed in the conflict, they declined, wanting the same white peace granted to other combatants.

Because they were stuck in a war with Fark, and because that trapped their allies at war with them, NSO did an incredibly generous thing and decided that the best course of action would be to just turn it around and call their war with Fark a war in defense of IRON, as at this point Fark had declared on NSO's allies in IRON. That way, those who were fighting alongside of NSO in the previous conflict would be free to rebuild or do whatever they needed to do.

So no. NSO does not deserve to be punished. NSO deserves to be praised.

-
[/quote]
Exactly this. NSO has done nothing wrong, all they have done is defend their allies. Surely this is something to be commended, not demonised?

[Chalaskan]

Everyone can babble as they like. The facts are NpO started a war, and drew several alliances into it. Then when they saw they might be losing, they went on the fence and declared on TOP. Now they leave one of their closest allies in the dust while they preserve their infra. Always wanting to be on the winning side just like their previous? leader.

Grub running to NpO the day after NAAC disbanded left a bad taste in my mouth.

So do the actions of NpO during this war. If anyone disagrees with that, they are blinded by being opportunistic at the opportunism NpO did to help their own causes. (Hell, many on the other side see this.)

Regardless of NSO and Ivan's reputation, they have been nothing but honorable during this war, and anyone not granting them WHITE peace is quite the opposite.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Chalaskan

[Crymson]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='24 February 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1267003371' post='2201174']
Exactly this. NSO has done nothing wrong, all they have done is defend their allies. Surely this is something to be commended, not demonised?
[/quote]

No way! Only when it's CnG's allies!

[Kzoppistan]

Too bad. Good luck to both parties.

[Lonely]

How the $%&@ is NSO cowardly for defending their allies?

$%&@ you and your double standards. If we were any other alliance, you'd be singing our praises right now. I'm proud to call myself a Sith.

Oh, and not so long ago I almost went back to Polar. Grub has succeeded in changing my views. Best of luck to you finding new allies after this war, you'll need it.

[Crowdog07]

[quote name='TBRaiders' date='24 February 2010 - 12:26 AM' timestamp='1266992982' post='2200827']
Can't NSO get peace right now by agreeing to do a beer review and not re-enter the conflict? Hasn't that offer been on the table for weeks? If not, my bad. Just something I thought I read somewhere. I ask because I see a lot of people deflecting blame for NSO still fighting, but it sounds to me like it's due to choice and not because any allies are holding a gun to your head. We've seen a dozen or so alliances leave this war with similar terms. I personally think NSO's involvement, with ties to both IRON and NpO, as one of the things keeping this war escalated.
[/quote]

From page 4 and still incredibly truthful. NpO had no good reason not to accept peace. NSO is clearly in it for IRON and have been for the past 2 weeks.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Crowdog' date='24 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1267004330' post='2201186']
From page 4 and still incredibly truthful. NpO had no good reason not to accept peace. NSO is clearly in it for IRON and have been for the past 2 weeks.
[/quote]

You may want to read the rest of the thread, including STA's confirmation of the opposite.

[gantanX]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='24 February 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1266999437' post='2201133']
[color="#0000FF"]Really, an opinion only matters if it can be backed up.[/color]
[/quote]

for a very long time i believe the same thing, but seeing how Cybernations has evolved lately, an Opinion only matters if you're the victors, not the defeated

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='gantanX' date='24 February 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1267005711' post='2201201']
for a very long time i believe the same thing, but seeing how Cybernations has evolved lately, an Opinion only matters if you're the victors, not the defeated
[/quote]

It's called Karma...O wai!