Ivan Moldavi Posted February 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Jim Bob the Glorious' date='24 February 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1267056971' post='2202244'] While I can appreciate your need to lie in order to build sympathy since the truth provides you none, try to pick something that isnt so easily counter. Fark declared on IRON at 11:40pm on Jan 28th. Polar and \m/ announced peace at 11:30pm. The server crashed. We were already at war with Iron before NSO ever even came to us for peace. As for not speaking with other Dark Council, I can say I agree with Ivan on the topic. Why talk with others when the Emperor is around. Especially after he's declared himself the single true voice of NSO and specifically told this forum that all others are to be ignored. [/quote] I told you that you could speak with Lintwad or contact anyone on the Darth Council and they could reach me. You claiming that I have stated that I am the sole voice of the NSO does not make it so no matter how many embassies or threads you post it in. The only aspect of that which is relevant is that I stated I reserve sole right to declare aggressive wars. That does not in any way equate to me being the sole voice of NSO. That is a red herring that you used to avoid communication with my alliance while I was offline due to [OOC] reasons. It also fails to point out that when I did talk to you on the two or three occasions that we spoke that you stated that you had no intentions of granting us the peace that you gave to others or that everyone else on the front received. Again, stating that you offered white peace doesn't make it so when it was never actually offered. You also had a conversation with Grub just prior to our counter declaration, which was after you gave me an ultimatum to surrender or nothing, claiming that you were going to give us peace to "help them out". Unfortunately that is either just a blatant lie on your part or it was something that you planned to do but for some reason, even though I was online at the time and had talked to you that day, failed to communicate to NSO. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentFury Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 dont give NSO white peace keep pounding them out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='SilentFury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1267057389' post='2202259'] dont give NSO white peace keep pounding them out! [/quote] I believe that is the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Anthony' date='24 February 2010 - 07:17 PM' timestamp='1267057288' post='2202257'] Eh...no. [/quote] So, you guys are willing to surrender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 That is too bad about the treaty but an understandable decision. In regards to the ongoing NSO war, that is a tricky knot, indeed. I think white peace for NSO is the appropriate move in this case, as keeping them in war will erode the reputations of NSO's attackers. As NSO entered on the treaty obligation and their military has been checked, there is nothing more to be gained from the situation without undue negative impact on those who would try to receive reparations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentFury Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1267057468' post='2202263'] I believe that is the plan. [/quote] That is one great plan ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnCapistan Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='SilentFury' date='24 February 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1267057603' post='2202270'] That is one great plan ! [/quote] The NSO is a classy,intelligent, and powerful alliance not to mention superior in every way to yours. You would do you well to show some respect. Edited February 25, 2010 by Mr Damsky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icepick Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='SilentFury' date='24 February 2010 - 07:23 PM' timestamp='1267057603' post='2202270'] That is one great plan ! [/quote] Too bad it won't make us go away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='CodyHaner' date='25 February 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1267057924' post='2202283'] Too bad it won't make us go away [/quote] The strong will survive. Doesn't say anything about getting smacked around for a while though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='CodyHaner' date='24 February 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1267057924' post='2202283'] Too bad it won't make us go away [/quote] Bob needs some form of antagonist and as much as I would hate to admit this, NSO plays that role quite well, albeit not as well at TOP in this case. Damn overshadowing and all that jazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bob the Glorious Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 07:19 PM' timestamp='1267057362' post='2202258'] I told you that you could speak with Lintwad or contact anyone on the Darth Council and they could reach me. You claiming that I have stated that I am the sole voice of the NSO does not make it so no matter how many embassies or threads you post it in. The only aspect of that which is relevant is that I stated I reserve sole right to declare aggressive wars. That does not in any way equate to me being the sole voice of NSO. That is a red herring that you used to avoid communication with my alliance while I was offline due to [OOC] reasons. It also fails to point out that when I did talk to you on the two or three occasions that we spoke that you stated that you had no intentions of granting us the peace that you gave to others or that everyone else on the front received. Again, stating that you offered white peace doesn't make it so when it was never actually offered. You also had a conversation with Grub just prior to our counter declaration, which was after you gave me an ultimatum to surrender or nothing, claiming that you were going to give us peace to "help them out". Unfortunately that is either just a blatant lie on your part or it was something that you planned to do but for some reason, even though I was online at the time and had talked to you that day, failed to communicate to NSO. Weird. [/quote] That is weird. At this point no one really cares what either of us. Opinions are formed. Thankfully for the audience, we are both stubborn and can continue to entertain. I'll try to clarify your mistaken memory. [quote][12:41] [INFO] Query view for “Moldavi” opened. [12:41] === Moldavi <Mibbit@coldfront-7DB01172.wireless.unc.edu> “http://www.mibbit.com” [12:41] === Moldavi is a registered nick [12:41] === Moldavi: member of +#farkistan [12:41] === Moldavi: attached to ice.coldfront.net “Welcome to Coldfront!” [12:41] --- End of WHOIS information for Moldavi. [12:41] <Randomly[fark]> Hello [12:42] <Moldavi> So, do you want to keep fighting us? Sorry for the brevity, but I think we have established that you and I probably aren't going to be friends any time soon and I have to go to class soon. [12:42] <Randomly[fark]> I'll go ahead and give permission for these logs to go up on paste bin too. [12:42] <Randomly[fark]> [12:42] <Moldavi> Ha [12:43] <Randomly[fark]> Unlike NSO, I don't have the the luxury of dictatorship so I must talk to my government. [12:43] <Randomly[fark]> But I do have a concern of NSO being let out and then reattacking in support of IRON [12:44] <Moldavi> Indeed. [12:44] <Moldavi> Basically, my number one goal is to get those that attacked you on my behalf out. [12:44] <Moldavi> Everything else is just whatever it is [12:45] <Randomly[fark]> Which alliances attacked on your behalf? [12:45] <Moldavi> I want Carpe Diem, Brengstlau and SNAFU to get peace [12:45] <Randomly[fark]> Fark is already in talks over it. [12:46] <Randomly[fark]> I will have at least one condition. [12:46] <Randomly[fark]> Beer Reviews. [12:46] <Randomly[fark]> Fark can't fight an alliance named Brengstlau and not get a beer review out of it [12:46] <Moldavi> I have no idea what that means [12:46] <Moldavi> Ah [12:46] <Moldavi> I am certain they can give you one. I do not drink so I am no help. [12:47] <Randomly[fark]> And that gives me insight on why we disagree so often. [12:47] <Moldavi> Anyway, I didn't know if anyone from NSO had found you. I have to head to class in a few. [12:47] <Moldavi> Indeed. [12:47] <Randomly[fark]> Take care. [12:47] <Moldavi> Lintwad is my second in command [12:47] <Moldavi> He speaks for me. [12:47] <Randomly[fark]> k[/quote] Here is the first conversation of peace at nearly 1pm the day after the IRON war started. There is you saying to talk to Lintwad but no mention of 'Dark Council' Besides, why talk to them when I know your around. The OWF was and remains littered with your postings. Had you spent a fraction of your time talking to us that you spent grandstanding here, perhaps this would be over. I agree with you about stating something as white peace doesn't make it so. You've been doing it for months now and yet your enemies in Karma still had terms. Not surprising really. You've long claimed one thing while doing another. This entire thread is proof of that. Fark gave you as white as peace as you gave your enemies in Karma. As for my conversation with Grub, I was trying to find you. You and Lintwad disappeared while we at Fark waited to hear back about earlier peace talks. For those that were curious, here are those logs of the peace talks. [quote][14:15] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Alright [14:15] <Pyroman[CD]afk> So what's the situation with fark then? [14:15] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Lint, they're interested in what your guys' plans are [14:15] <Pyroman[CD]afk> If you're aiming for peace as well [14:16] <Randomly[fark]> Situation is that Fark gov is in talks. We have concerns about reentry down the line due to NSO and IRON's treaty. [14:16] <LintWad> We're just interested in getting our allies out of this, and peacing out of our current conflicts. [14:17] -->| Cairna (Cairna@coldfront-37013DA6.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has joined #bro [14:17] =-= Mode #BRO +h Cairna by ChanServ [14:18] <Pyroman[CD]afk> I think they're concerned that you might just end up fighting again Lint [14:18] <Pyroman[CD]afk> If they declare on IRON in this new issue [14:18] <Randomly[fark]> We have declared already. [14:18] <Randomly[fark]> We are at war with IRON [14:18] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Let me rephrase then "since they are already at war with IRON" [14:19] <LintWad> I really haven't given that end of things much thought. Like I said, we're just trying to get these guys out of this conflict. [14:20] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Understandable, but CD isn't going to sign peace until NSO does. We came in for you guys, can't just leave after two days [14:21] <Pyroman[CD]afk> So we're at an impasse [14:21] <Randomly[fark]> I figured that would be an issue. [14:21] <Randomly[fark]> You folks need to talk about what you want to do. [14:22] <Randomly[fark]> Fark is a pretty mellow group but we fight to defend allies. I'm sure you will do the same. [14:22] <Pyroman[CD]afk> True, but our current war is over, or rather, we feel the cause is lost [14:22] <Pyroman[CD]afk> And CD is no friend of IRON's, though we will defend the NSO [14:23] <LintWad> Pyro, if you're going to wait for us to get out, we're goign to have to put this on hold. [14:23] <Randomly[fark]> Agreed Lint. [14:23] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Okay [14:23] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Could we at least see about getting BAPS peace then? [14:23] <Pyroman[CD]afk> and if SNAFU/ICB want to get out [14:23] <Randomly[fark]> BAPS just went nuke on fark [14:24] <Randomly[fark]> You guys talk and come find Fark when you are ready. [14:24] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Alright [14:24] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Thanks for your time Randomly [14:24] <Randomly[fark]> thanks for coming to find me. [14:24] <Randomly[fark]> Best of luck, all [14:24] <Pyroman[CD]afk> Thanks, you too[/quote] Hey look, its Lintwad. The time is 2:30 the day after Polar and \m/ peaced out and an hour and half after our previous convo. You're appointed voice saying that he wasn't sure and that you and your allies need to put things on hold. Yet, I heard you claim later that we delayed. Hmm. Also logs of the Grub conversation. This was 31 hours after the peace talks while we were still waiting to hear from you or Lintwad. Session Start: Fri Jan 29 21:00:21 2010 Session Ident: AlmightyGrub 01[21:00] <Randomly[fark]> Ok, I need to know if NSO not surrendering will hinder your current plans? 01[21:07] <Randomly[fark]> Oh, never mind 01[21:07] <Randomly[fark]> Ivan answered via DOW 01[21:07] <Randomly[fark]> And I came offering to peace them out to help 01[21:07] <Randomly[fark]> lol 01[21:07] <Randomly[fark]> NEVERMIND [21:24] <AlmightyGrub> yah [21:24] <AlmightyGrub> I just saw [21:24] <AlmightyGrub> seriously [21:24] <AlmightyGrub> I am wasting my time in this mess of ego 01[21:24] <Randomly[fark]> I do like the spin tho 01[21:24] <Randomly[fark]> 'This was Farkistan's evil plot to trap us' 01[21:25] <Randomly[fark]> To make it official, I will now cackle [21:25] <AlmightyGrub> yah 01[21:25] <Randomly[fark]> Muhahahahahaha My ultimatum to you came recently. After the second time you walked away from talks and disappeared for days while we waited for your answer. For those that are curious, the ultimatum was 'Take the terms you agreed to by update or they off the table.' This is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reason Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 As an outside observer, I find things laughable. Firstly, to those who dictate that NSO refuses to surrender because of IRON, you exist either in self-delusion, ignorance, or simply have been absent altogether. Secondly, to those who regard that NSO is being paltry in refusal to accept such a trivial surrender term, not only has the beer review item been revoked, but its triviality implied that it was stupid to press in any case. Finally, for those who argue that simply admitting surrender is no different than white-peacing, your conception of principle and integrity are faulty. You say that surrendering will appear no different to others than white peace. NSO does not care what the others think in this regard. They obviously care about their self-respect they will have for themselves due to such a surrender. White peace implies a good bout which ends on even terms; surrender implies capitulation and bending-over. Contrary to public opinion, they are mutually exclusive for one's integrity. You say that principle and idealism will mean nothing if one's alliance is wiped out. Opposingly, I argue that without a purpose of principle or mission, there is no validity for an alliance to exist. For an alliance like NSO, to sacrifice principle to public demand is suicide and to fight until the bitter end would be much more honourable if not quite as deadly. You try to say that it is NSO's conduct that has earned them this issue. Perhaps they did some foolish things on IRC but the criticism is not that their conduct, as a whole, is a failure for them only that you refuse to accept them because they do not nor have ever conformed to your standards. If you choose to put them down for said reason, I can only wonder how it does not consciously occur to you that you are destroying them because they wanted to choose their own, individual path and not be owned by everyone else. Foreign affairs should not but has been a whorehouse, even for many alliances in this war. The worst punishment would be to force NSO to bend over when the only crime they committed was to defend allies honourably. If you do so, you will only perpetuate more stupidity in the already tangled treaty web. To conclude, you guys should either go and give them the damn white peace already or just announce your intentions to beat them down for a longer period with no remorse. The one thing that's worse than being a prick is trying to pretend not to be one when you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Liebenow Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 I like how most of the refutations on almost all points have gone unheard in favor of muckraking. And by like, I mean hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torak Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Pedron Niall' date='24 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1267059693' post='2202311'] As an outside observer, I find things laughable. Firstly, to those who dictate that NSO refuses to surrender because of IRON, you exist either in self-delusion, ignorance, or simply have been absent altogether. Secondly, to those who regard that NSO is being paltry in refusal to accept such a trivial surrender term, not only has the beer review item been revoked, but its triviality implied that it was stupid to press in any case. Finally, for those who argue that simply admitting surrender is no different than white-peacing, your conception of principle and integrity are faulty. You say that surrendering will appear no different to others than white peace. NSO does not care what the others think in this regard. They obviously care about their self-respect they will have for themselves due to such a surrender. White peace implies a good bout which ends on even terms; surrender implies capitulation and bending-over. Contrary to public opinion, they are mutually exclusive for one's integrity. You say that principle and idealism will mean nothing if one's alliance is wiped out. Opposingly, I argue that without a purpose of principle or mission, there is no validity for an alliance to exist. For an alliance like NSO, to sacrifice principle to public demand is suicide and to fight until the bitter end would be much more honourable if not quite as deadly. You try to say that it is NSO's conduct that has earned them this issue. Perhaps they did some foolish things on IRC but the criticism is not that their conduct, as a whole, is a failure for them only that you refuse to accept them because they do not nor have ever conformed to your standards. If you choose to put them down for said reason, I can only wonder how it does not consciously occur to you that you are destroying them because they wanted to choose their own, individual path and not be owned by everyone else. Foreign affairs should not but has been a whorehouse, even for many alliances in this war. The worst punishment would be to force NSO to bend over when the only crime they committed was to defend allies honourably. If you do so, you will only perpetuate more stupidity in the already tangled treaty web. To conclude, you guys should either go and give them the damn white peace already or just announce your intentions to beat them down for a longer period with no remorse. The one thing that's worse than being a prick is trying to pretend not to be one when you are. [/quote] This Truly nothing more needs to be said Also Polar I wish you the best of luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Pedron Niall' date='24 February 2010 - 07:58 PM' timestamp='1267059693' post='2202311'] As an outside observer, I find things laughable. Firstly, to those who dictate that NSO refuses to surrender because of IRON, you exist either in self-delusion, ignorance, or simply have been absent altogether. Secondly, to those who regard that NSO is being paltry in refusal to accept such a trivial surrender term, not only has the beer review item been revoked, but its triviality implied that it was stupid to press in any case. Finally, for those who argue that simply admitting surrender is no different than white-peacing, your conception of principle and integrity are faulty. You say that surrendering will appear no different to others than white peace. NSO does not care what the others think in this regard. They obviously care about their self-respect they will have for themselves due to such a surrender. White peace implies a good bout which ends on even terms; surrender implies capitulation and bending-over. Contrary to public opinion, they are mutually exclusive for one's integrity. You say that principle and idealism will mean nothing if one's alliance is wiped out. Opposingly, I argue that without a purpose of principle or mission, there is no validity for an alliance to exist. For an alliance like NSO, to sacrifice principle to public demand is suicide and to fight until the bitter end would be much more honourable if not quite as deadly. You try to say that it is NSO's conduct that has earned them this issue. Perhaps they did some foolish things on IRC but the criticism is not that their conduct, as a whole, is a failure for them only that you refuse to accept them because they do not nor have ever conformed to your standards. If you choose to put them down for said reason, I can only wonder how it does not consciously occur to you that you are destroying them because they wanted to choose their own, individual path and not be owned by everyone else. Foreign affairs should not but has been a whorehouse, even for many alliances in this war. The worst punishment would be to force NSO to bend over when the only crime they committed was to defend allies honourably. If you do so, you will only perpetuate more stupidity in the already tangled treaty web. To conclude, you guys should either go and give them the damn white peace already or just announce your intentions to beat them down for a longer period with no remorse. The one thing that's worse than being a prick is trying to pretend not to be one when you are. [/quote] I love you. Want a new alliance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 I am not going to read all of this, but what is Polar's side in this matter if anyone doesn't mind sharing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='24 February 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1267056871' post='2202240'] The NSO has not monkeyed around with peace negotiations at all. What Randomly Jim failed to mention is that when I did talk to him directly to seek to re-address the terms he informed me that it was not an option and that I had until update that night to post our surrender to Fark or the terms were off the table. He unilaterally changed the terms from what could have been a mutual peace into a surrender. He is within his rights to do so just as I am within my rights to reject them. In the future I assume that every alliance will automatically accept whatever terms are presented to them without question, right? It seems that a lot of people seem to think that is what I should have done. [/quote] You had accepted the terms, then changed your mind. You are of course not required to accept the terms, but it's a little tacky to whine up and down the OWF about how mean Fark is for wishing to get the peace terms you yourself agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='24 February 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1267060475' post='2202329'] You had accepted the terms, then changed your mind. You are of course not required to accept the terms, but it's a little tacky to whine up and down the OWF about how mean Fark is for wishing to get the peace terms you yourself agreed to. [/quote] Sigh, again no. What you and several others seem to be missing is that when I did talk to Fark I was told the terms had changed into our surrender. I told Jim that such a stipulation had never been discussed and that it was unacceptable. Posting out of context logs of convos that took place prior to that doesn't change the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Crowdog' date='24 February 2010 - 07:10 PM' timestamp='1267056865' post='2202239'] Well I think at this point it might be best to think about your members. Do their thoughts echo along the lines of "we'd rather be in war forever with an emperor who cares so highly about his appearance" or "we'd be willing to compromise, things change and it's impossible for us to get what we thought was once possible." From a people management standpoint it seems you care more about your image and not lying to your members than you do about the members themselves. You've already admitted to losing the war. People will see your exit from the war as a loss regardless if you leave through white peace or through surrender. The only people that would see other than that are yourselves and given you've already admitted defeat the only remaining assumption to make is that you're delusional. [/quote] In the three great wars I have fought in, I was on the loosing side. In the Unjust War when I was in GOONS, then in the Karma War in the NPO, and now the Cluster$#%& War in the NSO. I have been ZI'd numerous times, and I rebuild every time to my former position and beyond. If fighting this war with my brothers to the end means the destruction of my nation, so be it. At least I know that I would be fighting to gain something that we deserve as simple as "white peace" that our enemies can't even bring forth on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin32891 Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='24 February 2010 - 08:06 PM' timestamp='1267060194' post='2202323'] I am not going to read all of this, but what is Polar's side in this matter if anyone doesn't mind sharing? [/quote] They peace'd everyone on our front, and are focusing on attacking TOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heggo Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Crowdog' date='24 February 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1267056865' post='2202239'] Well I think at this point it might be best to think about your members. Do their thoughts echo along the lines of "we'd rather be in war forever with an emperor who cares so highly about his appearance" or "we'd be willing to compromise, things change and it's impossible for us to get what we thought was once possible." [/quote] Actually, our membership base feels more strongly about this than Ivan himself does, judging from the votes we've taken. Thanks for caring so much about our members though! I'm glad to hear there are still members in MK urging people to think about the average Sithian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minilla Island Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='kevin32891' date='24 February 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1267061487' post='2202346'] They peace'd everyone on our front, and are focusing on attacking TOP. [/quote]But, what caused them to just walk away? This is the most shocking announcement I have even seen. I would never in a million years have thought Ivan and Polar would kill a treaty with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Seems I will be reading all of this. Seems Polaris got peace but forgot some allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='24 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1267063730' post='2202389'] Seems I will be reading all of this. Seems Polaris got peace but forgot some allies. [/quote] That's a very simplistic view of it. There really isn't one right view. This war is so stupid that its gotten to the point where allies such as NSO and NpO are canceling on each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacapo Saladin Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='24 February 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1267063730' post='2202389'] Seems I will be reading all of this. Seems Polaris got peace but forgot some allies. [/quote] I believe this makes two times in a few weeks that they have taken peace and left their allies fighting. Edited February 25, 2010 by Jacapo Saladin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts