Jrenster Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='24 February 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1267071952' post='2202577'] You read them quite well, I can tell. [/quote] Good response to me saying "I don't need logs to make my point." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentbee Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='24 February 2010 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1267071727' post='2202566'] You don't really seem to be able to read logs. Ok then, moving on. At that time, your leadership was willing to. The fact that you won't accept terms that aren't exactly what you want is sad. Martyring yourself in this way doesn't make you some hero of the Cyberverse, it just makes you completely and absolutely stupid. inb4 Fark is just as bad!!!! Seriously? The losers don't dictate terms. In regards to you not losing, get over yourselves. You are "defeated but haven't lost". Jesus, just give it up. The pity you want you don't get when you are rejecting terms such as these. [/quote] Please point me to the logs where we were offered White Peace. We were offered peace with terms, and we were offered surrender terms. Please show me where white peace, as the other nations on our front received, was offered to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1267072050' post='2202582'] They asked us to surrender. Hence, the beer review (although I will admit, this is a relatively moot point to argue about). I don't want to repeat the technical definition of a white peace again. [/quote] Technical term? When did common sense not prevail? If it was moot, you wouldn't even mention it, therefore, its validity was worth enough to mention it. I hope you really understand this is just nonsense. It is a beer review, I never honestly -- And I say this sincerely -- thought I would be pointing my finger at NSO in disbelief over them being upset over such a ridiculous term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1267072050' post='2202582'] They asked us to surrender. Hence, the beer review (although I will admit, this is a relatively moot point to argue about). I don't want to repeat the technical definition of a white peace again. [/quote] Yes. You're going to need to surrender. We might not be so adamant about this if the whole "we [NPO] essentially won GWI haha" thing hadn't happened. But it did. This time it's going to need to be a clear and obvious surrender so that it may not be used (at least convincingly) for future propaganda / recruiting purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Epiphanus' date='24 February 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1267072106' post='2202584'] I included the beer review in my diagnosis. Try again. [/quote] Your diagnosis is just !@#$%*ing about semantics. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='24 February 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1267072097' post='2202583'] So, you are refusing to peace over the technical definition of white peace? [/quote] I was just referring to how Brentbee was saying that we refuse to surrender. Because that's what their "white peace" is, it's surrendering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epiphanus Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1267072258' post='2202594'] Your diagnosis is just !@#$%*ing about semantics. Try again. [/quote] There are no semantics involved... you were offered peace with beer review. Then in this thread, fark has said you could have peace with no beer review. You still said no. I fail to see where this turns from facts to semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='24 February 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1267072210' post='2202589'] Technical term? When did common sense not prevail? If it was moot, you wouldn't even mention it, therefore, its validity was worth enough to mention it. I hope you really understand this is just nonsense. It is a beer review, I never honestly -- And I say this sincerely -- thought I would be pointing my finger at NSO in disbelief over them being upset over such a ridiculous term. [/quote] There is a FINE line between asking us to surrender and asking us for white peace. It has nothing to do with the technicality of it. I merely brought it up to remind people of the fine line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1267072119' post='2202586'] Good response to me saying "I don't need logs to make my point." [/quote] Yes, it was. I was stating that you are being closeminded and unwilling to read the actual factual evidence and just posting whatever you feel like. [quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1267072258' post='2202594'] Your diagnosis is just !@#$%*ing about semantics. Try again. [/quote] And yours isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Epiphanus' date='24 February 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1267072388' post='2202598'] There are no semantics involved... you were offered peace with beer review. Then in this thread, fark has said you could have peace with no beer review. You still said no. I fail to see where this turns from facts to semantics. [/quote] What? In this thread Fark has said the "option" of peace with a beer review is off the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 It isn't really that fine a line. In a surrender you have the winner and the loser (that's you! ). In white peace you just have two sides who are no longer at war due to a mutual agreement. You've already acknowledged that you've lost; the next step is to surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote]I think the more baffling part would be when Ivan redeclared war on Fark, despite the fact that they were working out terms. [/quote] It was understandable, if a !@#$%* thing to do on a short notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Jrenster' date='24 February 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1267072408' post='2202599'] There is a FINE line between asking us to surrender and asking us for white peace. It has nothing to do with the technicality of it. I merely brought it up to remind people of the fine line. [/quote] Beer review Re enter the war And you cry? ESPECIALLY after YOU guys gave TERMS to FAKR? It is a double-edged sword. So technically NSO never gave white peace, by your logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Ejayrazz' date='24 February 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1267072565' post='2202608'] Beer review Re enter the war And you cry? ESPECIALLY after YOU guys gave TERMS to FAKR? It is a double-edged sword. So technically NSO never gave white peace, by your logic? [/quote] We did what now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrenster Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='24 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1267072423' post='2202600'] Yes, it was. I was stating that you are being closeminded and unwilling to read the actual factual evidence and just posting whatever you feel like. [/quote] I'm being close-minded? Why don't you actually give me stream of logic instead of pointing out to things in the air, assuming that I know what the hell you're talking about. And at the same time, refusing to listen to my simple arithmetic reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midkn1ght Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Aurion' date='24 February 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1267070275' post='2202515'] I'd say you should read the forums more Mid, but I have too much respect for your sanity to actually recommend you do [i]that.[/i] The tl;dr is apparently that victory is now immoral. [/quote] Yeah my bad, you know I've been out of touch for the last few months only able to check in a day or two a week, but heck, I didn't think that'd be enough time to change the meaning of won/lost O.o [quote]Which made NpO's declaration on you all that much more baffling, considering they supposedly did so in order to assist us in getting peace.[/quote] Nah, it made sense to us. Polar's had a grudge since the UJW. Hell our whole motivation for military-ing up our nations was the fact that we lived under constant assumption that Polar was coming for us one day. This was nothing more then a way for them to get some some. Maybe now that they'll have a new emperor we can open diplomatic channels again instead of living under stupid years old grudges. NSO fought well, but this constant ego Charlie-Foxtrot , "We will not surrender, but we'll admit defeat, and these are the terms we'll accept" act is stupid. It winds up ticking off the folks who'd agree to the peace in the first place, then their ego's won't allow them to have a ceasefire, they'll only take a surrender, then the other side get's more hostile. Heck, this is applicable to many alliance across the various fronts. You want to stop fighting in a war everyone involved thinks is stupid? Christ, [b]then do it[/b]. How you get there isn't that freaking important, especially since reps don't seem be a trend for this conflict so far. If calling it a ceasefire instead of a surrender is that important to you that you send your nations to the shredder, and (in some cases, not all) you're willing to bring your allies with you, you got some screwed priorities imho. Meh, back into exile for me, trying to cram a week of reading this crockpot of stupid that is this whole situation into a hour or two makes my eyes bleed. Maybe when I check back in in a few days the definition of broke will mean rich, and I can buy my soldiers some new infra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian LaCroix Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 Well, good luck with the whole "we'll never surrender" thing. I imagine it'll get old after a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Midkn1ght' date='24 February 2010 - 11:37 PM' timestamp='1267072860' post='2202625'] Yeah my bad, you know I've been out of touch for the last few months only able to check in a day or two a week, but heck, I didn't think that'd be enough time to change the meaning of won/lost O.o [/quote] It's so hard to keep up with community standards these days! If you think that's bad, just check the sudden storm of !@#$%*ing about what is and isn't white peace. I personally figure that by the end of the next war, the winners will be expected to pay reps to the losers. After all, we have a moral obligation to help them rebuild amirite? Edited February 25, 2010 by Aurion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 I'm just going to comment on the profound irony that lies in Electron Sponge complaining about the "image" of his alliance, whilst completely avoiding the subject of responsibility. It seems people change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Aurion' date='24 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1267073195' post='2202641'] If you think that's bad, just check the sudden storm of !@#$%*ing about what is and isn't white peace. It's so hard to keep up with community standards these days! I personally figure that by the end of the next war, the winners will be expected to pay reps to the losers. After all, we have a moral obligation to help them rebuild amirite? [/quote] We haven't contested Fark's ability to issue whatever terms they like. That people seem to conflate the power to offer terms with some obligation to accept terms isn't really our problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexomega Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) Where did this come from? I'm usually pretty good foreseeing such things. Edited February 25, 2010 by Dexomega Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Heft' date='24 February 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1267073326' post='2202645'] We haven't contested Fark's ability to issue whatever terms they like. That people seem to conflate the power to offer terms with some obligation to accept terms isn't really our problem. [/quote] If you want to fight it out due to an issue with the terms offered, it's your choice. Frankly, I respect you lot on some level quite a bit more at this point since you could have just walked off into the sunset when NpO pulled out the first time and few would have said anything. My issue is more with the Morality Brigade condemning everything that isn't nailed down as being evil and hegemonic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydro Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Adrian LaCroix' date='24 February 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1267073010' post='2202632'] Well, good luck with the whole "we'll never surrender" thing. I imagine it'll get old after a while. [/quote] You seriously underestimate the NSO and especially Moldavi. I wouldn't be suprised if we were to roll the clock forward a year or two and still see Moldavi refusing to surrender, even if it meant he was the sole member of NSO. The fact of the matter is that you simply will not enforce your will on Moldavi or the NSO: you cannot and will not convince them to surrender. Back on topic though, I'm not suprised by this move one bit. After Grub betrayed TOP and IRON it seemed inevitable that we'd be seeing treaty cancellations after the war and peacing out GOD during wartime pretty well demanded a cancellation. To all Polars: as a former member and one who considers NpO one of my favorite alliances (If I hadn't joined Pacifica I would've been back in Polaris), don't let Polaris be run into the ground by Grub: he's done a damned good job already and it's only going to get worse. You deserve better from your leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 [quote name='Hydro' date='25 February 2010 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1267073890' post='2202663'] Back on topic though, I'm not suprised by this move one bit. After Grub betrayed TOP and IRON it seemed inevitable that we'd be seeing treaty cancellations after the war and peacing out GOD during wartime pretty well demanded a cancellation. To all Polars: as a former member and one who considers NpO one of my favorite alliances (If I hadn't joined Pacifica I would've been back in Polaris), don't let Polaris be run into the ground by Grub: he's done a damned good job already and it's only going to get worse. You deserve better from your leadership. [/quote] I love this empty rhetoric from angry people. It more than amuses me over and over to see words like betrayed used so liberally. I am confident that there will be plenty of treaties canceled by plenty of people, not just involving Polaris... I actually consider it a very good thing. Untangling the web will make life so much simpler. The NSO made a choice, their choice, and so we made our choice. Seems simple enough. They then made another choice, seems logical. We have a strong disagreement over their perspective on matters, so what? Should we all see things the same way? Please do keep running me down, it is fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 25, 2010 Report Share Posted February 25, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Benjamin Arouet' date='24 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1267050990' post='2202114'] You guys are making quite the fine case to NSO for why it makes no sense not to agree to it, though I think we've moved somewhat beyond that particular issue. [/quote] That offer hasn't been available for a while, it seems to of been one of those situations where either you surrender when they give you the "fun" surrender term or be locked into war until you decide to surrender to an ever increasing unknown amount of reparations. Everyone arguing over the beer review peace terms are arguing over something past tense, there is no peace on the table. Not saying we would accept it if there was, but we can't accept something that isn't there regardless. Edited February 25, 2010 by Methrage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts