Notice of Cancellation

[Chief Savage Man]

Poison Clan is the truth. There's no way to figure the stats to say otherwise.

[bzelger]

Best of luck to both parties.

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='24 February 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1267023008' post='2201434']
I don't see why promising not to re-enter should be an issue for someone who wants out of this conflict, neither do I see a beer review being an issue. NSO is just being pedantic.
[/quote]

With your logic, one can argue that Fark is being pedantic too. But, neither of us are.

There is a very fine line between accepting white peace and moving to a status quo ante bellum, and committing to terms offered by the enemy. Ask STA. They fought Fark. They didn't do a beer review. They didn't surrender.

We won't surrender.

[PrideAssassin]

Wow NpO...
Way to go?
Keep up the good fight my Sith brothers and sisters.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1267028338' post='2201514']
With your logic, one can argue that Fark is being pedantic too. But, neither of us are.

There is a very fine line between accepting white peace and moving to a status quo ante bellum, and committing to terms offered by the enemy. Ask STA. They fought Fark. They didn't do a beer review. They didn't surrender.

We won't surrender.
[/quote]
To be fair, STA is generally a nicer and more well liked alliance than NSO.

According to some the likeability of an alliance is the main indicator on whether or not you should abandon them on the battlefield. Since NSO is disliked we shouldn't expect the same terms as others for taking part in the same actions.

[CaptainImpavid]

A beer review isn't a surrender term. It [b]is[/b] an admission of defeat. There is actually a difference. An admission of defeat is just that. An admission of "Ok, you really whupped us, you win, let's call this off." This is what the vast majorities of so-called "white peace" declarations entail.

A surrender is, in addition to an admission of defeat, a submission to the will of the victor. It is saying "you have vanquished us, we want out, but we recognize that we must bend to your whims and will to do so." No one (yet) is asking this of NSO.

NSO has lost this war. No two ways around it. Trying to seek a simple "end of hostilities" where no one is officially the victor, simply for the egotistical and utterly transparent claim of being "undefeated" is, at this juncture, stupid and counterproductive. A "white peace" the way that NSO is trying to define it is something reserved for opponents who are so evenly matched that no clear victor is apparent, and for opponents who acquit themselves so well that they earn the respect, mercy, and approbation of their opponents. Sadly, for NSO, things are not evenly matched and they have spit in the face of every opportunity to earn respect or mercy.

So now, they have to admit they lost. Not surrender, but own up to the reality of the situation.

[heggo]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='24 February 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1267023008' post='2201434']
I don't see why promising not to re-enter should be an issue for someone who wants out of this conflict, neither do I see a beer review being an issue. NSO is just being pedantic.
[/quote]
I'll explain why the beer reviews are an issue to us through analogy. Suppose your friend Polar invites you to a party, and once you get there they drug you for some reason and you wake up a couple hours later surrounded by ten guys who are trying to beat you to death. Imagine that this one guy from the group, we'll call him Fark, says "Hey, I won't rape you if you give me a blowjob." When we tell him to shove off and insist on neither happening, is it fair of that guy -- yes: THAT guy, we'll call him mushroom judging from this thread -- to come by and say "Whelp NSO, if you get raped its your own fault now!" and say other such irritating things?

[jimbacher]

Interesting [b]anal[/b]ogy Heggo

[Goldie]

[quote name='heggo' date='24 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1267029356' post='2201538']
I'll explain why the beer reviews are an issue to us through analogy. Suppose your friend Polar invites you to a party, and once you get there they drug you for some reason and you wake up a couple hours later surrounded by ten guys who are trying to beat you to death. Imagine that this one guy from the group, we'll call him Fark, says "Hey, I won't rape you if you give me a blowjob." When we tell him to shove off and insist on neither happening, is it fair of that guy -- yes: THAT guy, we'll call him mushroom judging from this thread -- to come by and say "Whelp NSO, if you get raped its your own fault now!" and say other such irritating things?
[/quote]

Substitute drawing a picture of a stick figure for the BJ and the analogy starts to work.

[tamerlane]

[quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1267028338' post='2201514']
With your logic, one can argue that Fark is being pedantic too. But, neither of us are.

There is a very fine line between accepting white peace and moving to a status quo ante bellum, and committing to terms offered by the enemy. Ask STA. They fought Fark. They didn't do a beer review. They didn't surrender.

We won't surrender.
[/quote]

That line happens to be directly correlated with the actions taken by a given alliance during conflict. Perhaps you'd like to show me where STA declared in support of IRON or rejected near-white peace for x,y,z reasons. Its alot easier to get white peace when you aren't going about sticking your finger in everyone's eye and throwing temper tantrums such as this.

Edited February 24, 2010 by tamerlane

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='24 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267029248' post='2201534']
A beer review isn't a surrender term. It [b]is[/b] an admission of defeat. There is actually a difference. An admission of defeat is just that. An admission of "Ok, you really whupped us, you win, let's call this off." This is what the vast majorities of so-called "white peace" declarations entail.

A surrender is, in addition to an admission of defeat, a submission to the will of the victor. It is saying "you have vanquished us, we want out, but we recognize that we must bend to your whims and will to do so." No one (yet) is asking this of NSO.

NSO has lost this war. No two ways around it. Trying to seek a simple "end of hostilities" where no one is officially the victor, simply for the egotistical and utterly transparent claim of being "undefeated" is, at this juncture, stupid and counterproductive. A "white peace" the way that NSO is trying to define it is something reserved for opponents who are so evenly matched that no clear victor is apparent, and for opponents who acquit themselves so well that they earn the respect, mercy, and approbation of their opponents. Sadly, for NSO, things are not evenly matched and they have spit in the face of every opportunity to earn respect or mercy.

So now, they have to admit they lost. Not surrender, but own up to the reality of the situation.
[/quote]
I was told by Randomly Jim that the beer review was our indication of surrender.

I have never claimed that the NSO was winning. I knew from our first declaration against FOK, an alliance twice our size at the time, that we were entering a losing battle, regardless of any grand plans on the periphery. And yet the NSO declared anyway.

If the original bargain, that the front wouldn't close until all combatants got white peace, had been upheld from the beginning then the sides in regards to the current conflict would have been more even, so that point doesn't fit.

The NSO has lost 70% of it's NS. Obviously we have lost this war, but we will not surrender. I have given my word to my membership in that regard and no amount of discussion will ever see me lie to my members.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1267029229' post='2201533']
To be fair, STA is generally a nicer and more well liked alliance than NSO.

According to some the likeability of an alliance is the main indicator on whether or not you should abandon them on the battlefield. Since NSO is disliked we shouldn't expect the same terms as others for taking part in the same actions.
[/quote]

Normally I applaud and appreciate your style but in this case you are wrong. You have denied peace with no in-game repercussions and are guilty of holding your ally in a war that you refuse to peace out of. You currently aren't in the war because you came to the defense of Polar, you are currently in a war that you declared in Defense of IRON. How deliciously IRONic that you left that out of your OP. Polar, while much of it was their own doing, has every right to peace out after a month of fighting if you won't accept peace because you don't want to do a beer review.

[Johnny Apocalypse]

[quote name='heggo' date='24 February 2010 - 04:32 PM' timestamp='1267029356' post='2201538']
I'll explain why the beer reviews are an issue to us through analogy. Suppose your friend Polar invites you to a party, and once you get there they drug you for some reason and you wake up a couple hours later surrounded by ten guys who are trying to beat you to death. Imagine that this one guy from the group, we'll call him Fark, says "Hey, I won't rape you if you give me a blowjob." When we tell him to shove off and insist on neither happening, is it fair of that guy -- yes: THAT guy, we'll call him mushroom judging from this thread -- to come by and say "Whelp NSO, if you get raped its your own fault now!" and say other such irritating things?
[/quote]


You've given me the best laugh of the day, thank you. That's the finest analogy and fits the situation perfectly.
I don't think I'll ever be able to take you seriously again.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Johnny Apocalypse

[Coven]

Sounds similar to a situation we (TPF) just experienced. I know what its like. I wish NSO all the best, your a great group.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

I don't think they should have to do a beer review if they don't want to since I always saw that as just a funny term. However, if NSO is refusing to sign a turn barring them from reentering the conflict then they are silly to complain about not receiving peace. I don't know if this has been answered yet, since I haven't read the thread, but thats my 2 cents.

[bigwoody]

Going into this war, with Polar declaring on \m/ then word going down the pipe that it would go global, if someone told me it would get so crazy that NSO would end up dropping Polar, I'd say they were insane. And yet, here we are, and even the tired "sad but necessary" applies. We are through the looking glass.

Good luck to NSO, one thing this war has done is proven your mettle.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Airikr' date='24 February 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1267030039' post='2201555']
Sounds similar to a situation we (TPF) just experienced. I know what its like. I wish NSO all the best, your a great group.
[/quote]

Not really, you stayed in defense of the original ally that was in the war. NSO was fighting in defense of Polar and then had a ceasefire and was about to have peace when they re-declared in defense of IRON.

TPF's situation was straight forward. NSO's is a ball of yarn.

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='heggo' date='24 February 2010 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1267029356' post='2201538']
I'll explain why the beer reviews are an issue to us through analogy. Suppose your friend Polar invites you to a party, and once you get there they drug you for some reason and you wake up a couple hours later surrounded by ten guys who are trying to beat you to death. Imagine that this one guy from the group, we'll call him Fark, says "Hey, I won't rape you if you give me a blowjob." When we tell him to shove off and insist on neither happening, is it fair of that guy -- yes: THAT guy, we'll call him mushroom judging from this thread -- to come by and say "Whelp NSO, if you get raped its your own fault now!" and say other such irritating things?
[/quote]

Oh my god this is an absolute gem.

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1267030069' post='2201556']
I don't think they should have to do a beer review if they don't want to since I always saw that as just a funny term. However, if NSO is refusing to sign a turn barring them from reentering the conflict then they are silly to complain about not receiving peace. I don't know if this has been answered yet, since I haven't read the thread, but thats my 2 cents.
[/quote]

I believe the bone of contention here is that NSO wants completely white peace so that Ivan can uphold his promise to the membership that they never surrendered. While I think it would be assumed that they would not re-enter the conflict, you never can tell with those dastardly sith.

Also, your two cents is more like six cents to these mere mortals.

[Kowalski]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1267030069' post='2201556']
I don't think they should have to do a beer review if they don't want to since I always saw that as just a funny term. However, if NSO is refusing to sign a turn barring them from reentering the conflict then they are silly to complain about not receiving peace. I don't know if this has been answered yet, since I haven't read the thread, but thats my 2 cents.
[/quote]
I think that's it. True white peace is a tie, fake white peace (barring them from re-entering) is a defeat. NSO don't lose.

[deathcat]

Best of luck to NSO. You guys have been in an impossible situation since the first Polar WTF moment in this war. Leave the field and be called cowards for abandoning IRON. I have immense respect for what you have done on and off the field in this war. The only ones supporting Polar are the ones that currently have, or see in the near future, a chance to profit from this war continuing or from further mucking of the treaty web.. For those taunting those in PM of the NSO... whatever makes you "feel" like a real man (or woman). NSO has done nothing but honor their defensive treaties and for this deserve WHITE PEACE and a high five

Though I still hold many in Polar in high regard, I don't see their alliance regaining their honor anytime soon. I mean not to disrespect the membership or the leadership. It has been their decision to work this war in their own fashion using something every alliance feels they have a right to use: free will and sovereignty over foreign affairs. Unfortunately, the flaws in decision making were magnified by their actions.

I wish the best to all... may this War Of The Honor Challeged end quickly so we can possibly find our Planet's Moral Compass... For once...


oo/ NSO
oo/ Ivan
oo/ Honour (Once lost.. but not forgotten)

[Wad of Lint]

In the past both NSO and Polar have loyally stuck by one another. More recently our relationship has been one hell of a diplomatic ride. Through the first transgressions we were patient; hoping Polar would pull through and remain an honorable and valuable ally. We were able to calm the protests of our members. We told ourselves that once this war was over, things would be different; it was this excuse for a war that caused diplomatic problems.

With the acceptance of peace, and the subsequent continued barrage on TOP, I can no longer justify to my members the continuation of our treaty. It has become meaningless. I think we have proven our will to stick by our allies. To defend our members and uphold our principles. We ask our allies do the same. Compromising on your integrity, and those ideals you hold dear is the lowest low an alliance, or an individual can achieve.

I do not believe the issues that lead to this point lie with Polaris as a whole. Nor do I believe they are Polar's nature. I think a combination of an odd situation, a couple of reactionary decisions, and some ill-conceived logic has led us all to where we currently stand. Although it's a long road to recovery of our relationship I have not yet closed the gate. That said, I think it will be up to Polar to make the first steps to repairing whatever still exists.

Good luck.

[Stumpy Jung Il]

[quote name='KagetheSecond' date='24 February 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1267030449' post='2201568']
I believe the bone of contention here is that NSO wants completely white peace so that Ivan can uphold his promise to the membership that they never surrendered. While I think it would be assumed that they would not re-enter the conflict, you never can tell with those dastardly sith.

Also, your two cents is more like six cents to these mere mortals.
[/quote]
You flatter me, dear son of Purple. However, I must say that taking his word for it probably wont sit well with the people who have been at war with his alliance. I know I wouldn't. Just sayin.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Stumpy Jung Il

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1267030166' post='2201560']
Not really, you stayed in defense of the original ally that was in the war. NSO was fighting in defense of Polar and then had a ceasefire and was about to have peace when they re-declared in defense of IRON.

TPF's situation was straight forward. NSO's is a ball of yarn.
[/quote]

After the cat has gotten a hold of it amirite?

I mean, we'd probably be out except for our ally did this little war thing

[KagetheSecond]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='24 February 2010 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1267030541' post='2201573']
You flatter me, dear son of Purple. However, I must say that taking his word for it probably wont sit well with the people who have been at war with his alliance. I know I wouldn't. Just sayin.
[/quote]
I would not either, sire. However, if that is truly what he expects, I don't see why everyone is arguing over the beer review. The sides are at an impasse and the only real solution that I can see is continuing the war until one submits to the other. But then again, most mortals are not gifted with the higher intellect of the Purple Royalty.