Notice of Cancellation

[Jyrinx]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1267110038' post='2203024']
Since it includes a term that Fark by definition equates to our surrender to them then yes.[/quote]

Ok, that's fine. I don't really see either NSO or someone else doing a beer review as really surrendering, but if you do then I guess that's that. While you're obviously welcome to fight for your beliefs and such, I can't really sympathize with you at all if that's the jist of your objection.

[quote]
To be clear, the NSO can not effectively re-enter this war. Whether or not that is a term realistically becomes moot at some point. The NSO has admitted defeat, whether that is or is not a term is moot. The NSO has not surrendered. It will not surrender. It will not accept or perform a term that the opposing side considers a de facto surrender. I am willing to admit our defeat, peace out and agree not to re-enter. That is it.
[/quote]

So it appears I misunderstood what your real objection was; I actually thought that your strongest objection would be a term relating to you re-entering, not the beer term. This was a long thread though so probably my bad in misreading a few key posts. Anyway, whether you can effectively re-enter or not, that kind of term is quite common to impose on the defeated party as you yourself did with Molon Labe. So while it might be moot, I'm guessing from this post that you don't actually take any issue with it. Which means it really is all the beer term.

Again, if you and the membership of NSO want to take that big of a stance against Fark's beer term, more power to you then. Have fun I guess.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='25 February 2010 - 10:03 AM' timestamp='1267110449' post='2203033']
As though I act in any official or propaganda capacity...

I know, but wasn't it just such a lovely image? I would've preferred snake oil, but the rust made me giggle.

Fine, if your membership would rather not surrender. Don't waste people's time looking for terms then.
[/quote]
We haven't been. We have simply rejected the terms offered to us. We are willing to accept what I stipulated above.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1267110761' post='2203039']
We haven't been. We have simply rejected the terms offered to us. We are willing to accept what I stipulated above.
[/quote]But your membership still want to keep fighting?

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='TypoNinja' date='25 February 2010 - 02:32 AM' timestamp='1267083364' post='2202837']
No it established that we don't think simply opposing us is a crime against humanity that should be severely punished, If there's no real beef, there's likely to be easy peace. We can recognize that a differing political view isn't a crime.

But anybody who thinks they are [i]entitled[/i] to white peace is kidding themselves.

You enter a war, you takes your chances, you might get off easy you might not. But who decides is going to be the victor just like always.
[/quote]
Nicely stated.

Though Ivan is complaining about the beer review, lets not forget the healthy food review they 'demanded' as well, I mean, since giving terms isn't white peace and all...

Edited February 25, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Jyrinx' date='25 February 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1267110721' post='2203038']
Ok, that's fine. I don't really see either NSO or someone else doing a beer review as really surrendering, but if you do then I guess that's that. While you're obviously welcome to fight for your beliefs and such, I can't really sympathize with you at all if that's the jist of your objection.



So it appears I misunderstood what your real objection was; I actually thought that your strongest objection would be a term relating to you re-entering, not the beer term. This was a long thread though so probably my bad in misreading a few key posts. Anyway, whether you can effectively re-enter or not, that kind of term is quite common to impose on the defeated party as you yourself did with Molon Labe. So while it might be moot, I'm guessing from this post that you don't actually take any issue with it. Which means it really is all the beer term.

Again, if you and the membership of NSO want to take that big of a stance against Fark's beer term, more power to you then. Have fun I guess.
[/quote]
No. It isn't that we take it as such, it is that it was clearly said to me that it was such. Considering that we entered this war simply to defend an ally by declaring on FOK I do not believe we should be forced to be the only alliance on the front to surrender. I find it laughable that so many that got their white peace and packed up and went home now seem to think I should be gracious for the opportunity to surrender when they did not. If they had not all peaced out the odds would not have been so overtly mismatched for such an extended period of time and we would not be in the situation we are now in regarding NS disparity so arguing that we have been beat down is moot, because that is obvious. When everyone else goes home and four alliances continue to beat on one then that is effectively going to be the case.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='25 February 2010 - 10:10 AM' timestamp='1267110844' post='2203041']
But your membership still want to keep fighting?
[/quote]
Yes they do.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1267111105' post='2203047']
Yes they do.
[/quote]And you're looking for terms?

Your membership want to keep fighting but you are looking for terms?

They want to fight.

You are looking for a way to stop fighting.

All correct statements?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='25 February 2010 - 10:18 AM' timestamp='1267111332' post='2203049']
And you're looking for terms?

Your membership want to keep fighting but you are looking for terms?

They want to fight.

You are looking for a way to stop fighting.

All correct statements?
[/quote]
Umm, no.

I have no idea what you are talking about actually. Fark presented us with terms, we rejected them, now the world is debating whether or not we should have rejected them or just accepted them, but no further terms have been presented or are available. I have presented what I believe to be a reasonable peace agreement but that was simply a post here in discussion, not part of any actually peace discussions. We have been informed that any further peace offerings, when they are gracious enough to present them, will include reparations, etc.

So, no.

[saddam]

Ivan, I'm curious, because even after reading all this I'm still not sure what the main issues are, if you were offered the following peace proposal:

- NSO agrees not to re-enter the conflict or aid any alliance for the duration of the conflict

No beer review, just a written guarantee to stay out for the rest of the war. Would you accept? Why, or why not?

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='saddam' date='25 February 2010 - 10:22 AM' timestamp='1267111548' post='2203054']
Ivan, I'm curious, because even after reading all this I'm still not sure what the main issues are, if you were offered the following peace proposal:

- NSO agrees not to re-enter the conflict or aid any alliance for the duration of the conflict

No beer review, just a written guarantee to stay out for the rest of the war. Would you accept? Why, or why not?
[/quote]
At this point, since it is clear that the NSO couldn't re-enter even if it wanted to, then yes.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:21 AM' timestamp='1267111500' post='2203052']
Umm, no.

I have no idea what you are talking about actually. Fark presented us with terms, we rejected them, now the world is debating whether or not we should have rejected them or just accepted them, but no further terms have been presented or are available. I have presented what I believe to be a reasonable peace agreement but that was simply a post here in discussion, not part of any actually peace discussions. We have been informed that any further peace offerings, when they are gracious enough to present them, will include reparations, etc.

So, no.
[/quote]Oh, OK. I was assuming that what was said could be taken seriously and not assumed to be public showboating with no consequences. My fault.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='25 February 2010 - 10:24 AM' timestamp='1267111707' post='2203057']
Oh, OK. I was assuming that what was said could be taken seriously and not assumed to be public showboating with no consequences. My fault.
[/quote]
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If I state it then it can be taken seriously regardless of the context. As a realist, I am not in a position to dictate terms to Fark. I can present what I find acceptable and they can continue to reject them as is their right, but that is all it is, what I am willing to accept, not what Fark must present. They can demand a million tech for all I care. To me that would be more lulz than the beer review but just as easy to reject.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1267111872' post='2203058']
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. If I state it then it can be taken seriously regardless of the context. As a realist, I am not in a position to dictate terms to Fark. I can present what I find acceptable and they can continue to reject them as is their right, but that is all it is, what I am willing to accept, not what Fark must present. They can demand a million tech for all I care. To me that would be more lulz than the beer review but just as easy to reject.
[/quote]OK, that's easy to say, if a little boring. You should probably talk to Fark about it in this case, rather than trying to make a propaganda storm on the forums. Perhaps I am being naive; no doubt you will tell me.

[Jamven]

I don't come here very often, usually because I leave with a horrible headache.

Ivan, I don't know you personally or very well politically, so you'll probably take what I say with a grain of salt.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1267110038' post='2203024']
Since it includes a term that Fark by definition equates to our surrender to them then yes.

To be clear, the NSO can not effectively re-enter this war. Whether or not that is a term realistically becomes moot at some point. The NSO has admitted defeat, whether that is or is not a term is moot. The NSO has not surrendered. It will not surrender. It will not accept or perform a term that the opposing side considers a de facto surrender. I am willing to admit our defeat, peace out and agree not to re-enter. That is it.
[/quote]

I hate to break it to you, but by your own admission, are defeated.

I thought that Sith were suppose to be cunning? At this point, you want to secure the future prosperity of your alliance. Swallow you pride, take the terms, and re-build to fight another day.

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1267111105' post='2203047']
Yes they do.
[/quote]

At some point, you as their leader, have got to go against their wishes and do what's best for them in the long run. They might not like it now, but the benefits later could be astonishing. You have already admitted defeat, NSO has lost 70% of its strength, get out now while NSO is still capable of re-building relatively quickly.

*edit king-fuu*
[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1267111673' post='2203056']
At this point, since it is clear that the NSO couldn't re-enter even if it wanted to, then yes.
[/quote]

Then the issue seems to lie in a choice of words in the peace terms. Surrender or admit defeat?

Edited February 25, 2010 by Jamven

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='25 February 2010 - 10:36 AM' timestamp='1267112370' post='2203061']
OK, that's easy to say, if a little boring. You should probably talk to Fark about it in this case, rather than trying to make a propaganda storm on the forums. Perhaps I am being naive; no doubt you will tell me.
[/quote]
Hmm. From what I can gather I posted a commonly accepted means of annoucing that a treaty was being cancelled. I purposefully avoided commenting in this topic at all until certain parties decided to start digging into me directly. So I am not 100% certain that I agree with the idea that this is somehow about us trying to create a propaganda piece against Fark. They decided to start posting out of context logs, they decided to go on and on about how the beer review is a "lulz" term meant to endear the defeated to the victors, even though that is clearly not the case in this instance. Aside from defend ourselves in the face of overwhelming odds and attempting to gain peace without humiliation I fail to see how the NSO has done anything in this topic to justify such a characterization.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:27 AM' timestamp='1267108266' post='2202996']
So it ultimately does come down to whether or not Fark et al want a perpetual war. My alliance has lost 70% of its NS. Because of the lack of staggers a lot of my people have already made it into peace mode, where they are rebuilding as best they can so that they can come back out at the lower ranges when needed. We are fine with fighting. We are not here complaining that the big bad alliances are picking on us. We are simply acknowledging that we want the same treatment others that entered via treaty obligations received and I can't really figure out how anyone on the opposing side can state that we don't "deserve" it when that really isn't part of the equation. We have fought a clean upfront battle from the very beginning. We took steps to assure that our allies that entered on our behalf gained peace and we will continue to fight so long as it necessary to achieve our stated aims, which isn't victory, it is survival.
[/quote]


Thank you so very much, Ivan, for perfectly prefacing the points that I was returning here to make.

Let us cast our minds back a bit, shall we, to another situation in which an alliance faced a "perpetual war." If you all recall FAN (hi FAN) and their...spot of bother, shall we say, with NPO, there came a time where they adopted tactics that some would say, and many of you in here today DID say, we not conducive to attaining peace. They were belligerent, offensive, and rude to their opponents. They, of course, did these things with more humor and style than NSO is managing, but they had, shall we say, similar attitudes towards their opponents.

But there is one big, glaring difference. FAN, for the most part, adopted this attitude once NPO had redeclared on them for "terms violations" and FAN had, by their own admission, [b]stopped seeking any sort of peace agreement with NPO[/b].

That's the kicker. Ivan is acting now, and more or less flat out admitting in his post above, that he is not interested in a peace agreement. (except on his terms, which seem to be nebulous and ever shifting.) He is not interested in compromise, not interested in attending negotiations, not interested in "taking terms seriously." What he does seem interested in is trying to lead his alliance into a perpetual war situation despite the good-faith efforts of his opponents to find a peaceful resolution.

Let me state now, for the record, that NSO will only fail to achieve peace for as long as they refuse to come to the table with the intention of actually, you know, negotiating. Showing up, making demands that you be treated like [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81162]everyone[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565]else[/url], and then storming off in a huff when you are is not what is generally understood as expert statescraft. If you don't like what is offered, make a counter proposal, not a stormoff.

As I believe I said earlier, you may not like what we ask, you may not even like us, but we are NOT being unreasonable here. We are not refusing to offer or grant peace, merely refusing to be manipulated through lies and parlor tricks into being the bad guy. You say that you've conducted a clean fight, which may be true, especially since the mechanics of war rather limit other options, but you haven't conducted a clean peace negotiation, which is, and will remain, our only bone of contention.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 09:40 AM' timestamp='1267112658' post='2203065']
Hmm. From what I can gather I posted a commonly accepted means of annoucing that a treaty was being cancelled. I purposefully avoided commenting in this topic at all until certain parties decided to start digging into me directly. So I am not 100% certain that I agree with the idea that this is somehow about us trying to create a propaganda piece against Fark. They decided to start posting out of context logs, they decided to go on and on about how the beer review is a "lulz" term meant to endear the defeated to the victors, even though that is clearly not the case in this instance. Aside from defend ourselves in the face of overwhelming odds and attempting to gain peace without humiliation I fail to see how the NSO has done anything in this topic to justify such a characterization.
[/quote]A "no comment" on the boards would suffice, I'm sure, when it came to the discussion of Fark terms, offered or hypothetical. I never said it was good propaganda, but it did develop quite opportunistically.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Jamven' date='25 February 2010 - 10:39 AM' timestamp='1267112568' post='2203063']
I don't come here very often, usually because I leave with a horrible headache.

Ivan, I don't know you personally or very well politically, so you'll probably take what I say with a grain of salt.



I hate to break it to you, but by your own admission, are defeated.

I thought that Sith were suppose to be cunning? At this point, you want to secure the future prosperity of your alliance. Swallow you pride, take the terms, and re-build to fight another day.



At some point, you as their leader, have got to go against their wishes and do what's best for them in the long run. They might not like it now, but the benefits later could be astonishing. You have already admitted defeat, NSO has lost 70% of its strength, get out now while NSO is still capable of re-building relatively quickly.

*edit fuu*


Then the issue seems to lie in a choice of words in the peace terms. Surrender or admit defeat?
[/quote]
Regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assessment what you don't acknowledge (know?) is that no peace is on the table at present to accept or reject. I have therefore offered what I believe to be a simple means of securing it without subjecting my people to what I consider to be undue humiliation. That is:

The NSO admits defeat at the hands of Fark, GOD, GO and CSN.
The NSO agrees not to re-enter.

So far as I am concerned that is an offer on the table from us. I do not expect it to be accepted but it is an offer just the same.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='CaptainImpavid' date='25 February 2010 - 10:42 AM' timestamp='1267112788' post='2203066']
Thank you so very much, Ivan, for perfectly prefacing the points that I was returning here to make.

Let us cast our minds back a bit, shall we, to another situation in which an alliance faced a "perpetual war." If you all recall FAN (hi FAN) and their...spot of bother, shall we say, with NPO, there came a time where they adopted tactics that some would say, and many of you in here today DID say, we not conducive to attaining peace. They were belligerent, offensive, and rude to their opponents. They, of course, did these things with more humor and style than NSO is managing, but they had, shall we say, similar attitudes towards their opponents.

But there is one big, glaring difference. FAN, for the most part, adopted this attitude once NPO had redeclared on them for "terms violations" and FAN had, by their own admission, [b]stopped seeking any sort of peace agreement with NPO[/b].

That's the kicker. Ivan is acting now, and more or less flat out admitting in his post above, that he is not interested in a peace agreement. (except on his terms, which seem to be nebulous and ever shifting.) He is not interested in compromise, not interested in attending negotiations, not interested in "taking terms seriously." What he does seem interested in is trying to lead his alliance into a perpetual war situation despite the good-faith efforts of his opponents to find a peaceful resolution.

Let me state now, for the record, that NSO will only fail to achieve peace for as long as they refuse to come to the table with the intention of actually, you know, negotiating. Showing up, making demands that you be treated like [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81162]everyone[/url] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81565]else[/url], and then storming off in a huff when you are is not what is generally understood as expert statescraft. If you don't like what is offered, make a counter proposal, not a stormoff.

As I believe I said earlier, you may not like what we ask, you may not even like us, but we are NOT being unreasonable here. We are not refusing to offer or grant peace, merely refusing to be manipulated through lies and parlor tricks into being the bad guy. You say that you've conducted a clean fight, which may be true, especially since the mechanics of war rather limit other options, but you haven't conducted a clean peace negotiation, which is, and will remain, our only bone of contention.
[/quote]
Umm, yeah, except that isn't true.

No one from NSO has stormed off. Claiming that to be so is ridiculous. When I did come back to renegotiate I was told that it wasn't an option and given an ultimatum to surrender or else. I took the or else. I stand by that since I consider your "side" to have actually been the party to negotiate in poor faith when a mutual peace was agreed to but it was changed over into a surrender without negotiation or discussion.

[Bob Janova]

So you're happy to 'admit defeat' and agree to a term (not to re-enter), and also 'will never surrender'? I admire the mental agility of your nation's lawyers.

I agree that if the beer reviews are seen as an onerous term, they shouldn't be applied, though I think you're being rather ridiculous if you have a serious problem with them. (The same applied to IRON in Karma.) If I was asked to write a poem, or draw a picture (that wasn't going to take me a long time to do), or something else which is pointless but not directly humiliating, I'd be much happier to do that in exchange for peace than pay out lots of money and tech.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1267113354' post='2203072']
So you're happy to 'admit defeat' and agree to a term (not to re-enter), and also 'will never surrender'? I admire the mental agility of your nation's lawyers.

I agree that if the beer reviews are seen as an onerous term, they shouldn't be applied, though I think you're being rather ridiculous if you have a serious problem with them. (The same applied to IRON in Karma.) If I was asked to write a poem, or draw a picture (that wasn't going to take me a long time to do), or something else which is pointless but not directly humiliating, I'd be much happier to do that in exchange for peace than pay out lots of money and tech.
[/quote]
Being defeated and surrendering are not the same thing. A defeated alliance can still fight, as we are doing. Even if that fight doesn't have as much bite as it did originally. A defeated alliance can agree to stop fighting though without acknowledging that it had to, thus surrendering. The NSO does not have to stop fighting. I do think it would be best for us overall but not at the risk of compromising my integrity or our culture.

[CaptainImpavid]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 10:45 AM' timestamp='1267112963' post='2203068']
Regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assessment what you don't acknowledge (know?) is that no peace is on the table at present to accept or reject. I have therefore offered what I believe to be a simple means of securing it without subjecting my people to what I consider to be undue humiliation. That is:

The NSO admits defeat at the hands of Fark, GOD, GO and CSN.
The NSO agrees not to re-enter.

So far as I am concerned that is an offer on the table from us. I do not expect it to be accepted but it is an offer just the same.
[/quote]


A nice offer, and one that two weeks ago would I am sure have been met eagerly. Now, given the ways in which you have, in Fark's eyes at least, slighted their every effort at finding peace, it may not be met so warmly. I will, however, endeavor to see that the offer is at least taken seriously.

If you are genuinely interested in peace and using the above offer as a starting point to negotiate, I'll be more than happy to offer my services to help mediate things.

To start, as a compromise, in lieu of the beer review, I would ask the following. I have a dinner party this weekend and need to prepare a few appetizers (really). So if you would, assuming of course this would all be wrapped up by then, ask your members if they have any good recipes to provide, that would be greatly appreciated. Things involving melted cheese are especially appreciated.

[Lord Brendan]

If your problem is the fact that most (all?) alliances in the Polar-M War agreed to a white peace, how about:

-NSO and its opponents agree to a white peace in the Polar-M War. NSO surrenders and admits defeat at the hands of Fark, CSN, GOD and GO in the TOP-C&G War.

It's semantics, but that's what your refusal is all about anyway.

[Ejayrazz]

SO because of an innocent beer review, you disregard it as humiliation and now you'll subject yourself to paying tech and money, or eternal fighting if you're too thick headed to fight? You are jeopardizing your alliance and its future merely over senseless rhetoric. I normally support the idea of people having different opinions and views as we all are different and view life subjectively; but compared to what is often given as terms, this is nothing but leniency on FARK's behalf. Lets not forget the initial deal made in which you spoke of Fark creating a food review, which they accepted too my knowledge.

I honestly, even if you feel otherwise, feel NSO no longer deserves this deal as you have insisted on using circular rhetoric, if that, to make a complete fool of yourself. Here comes the "I am Ivan and I don't care," which is certainly fine, but these terms were not in any shape or form humiliating, as it always ends in celebration. I get it, you're going to play the moralist perspective with the whole "It might not be offensive to you, but it is to us," but I refuse to accept such nonsense. YOu made your decision on very lenient terms; follow them and stop crying about the injustice. You're sympathy isn't working and I am ashamed an ancient leader such as yourself shows the modern adaption of redundancy in terms of the political front. I wish NSO the best of luck, but I honestly feel this perhaps one of the stupidest things I have ever seen on Planet Bob.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='25 February 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1267112963' post='2203068']
Regardless of whether or not you are correct in your assessment what you don't acknowledge (know?) is that no peace is on the table at present to accept or reject. I have therefore offered what I believe to be a simple means of securing it without subjecting my people to what I consider to be undue humiliation. That is:

The NSO admits defeat at the hands of Fark, GOD, GO and CSN.
The NSO agrees not to re-enter.

So far as I am concerned that is an offer on the table from us. I do not expect it to be accepted but it is an offer just the same.
[/quote]

That is quite a positive change in attitude, and I'm glad to see it. Earlier in the thread I made an extensive argument on reasonable/unreasonable positions, etc, but I don't think any fair minded individual could find the above to be unreasonable.