Notice of Cancellation

[Reason]

[quote name='Penkala' date='25 February 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1267147765' post='2204114']
In the DoW thread between GOD and NSO. Go find it. I'm not putting the effort in because once I go, read through it and post several replies here they'll just find some way to say 'yeah but that doesn't count' and some way to justify their actions.
[/quote]
All I seem to see the opposition doing in this thread is whining about a list of grievances which they continually keep adding to, which is quite ironic since they enjoying accusing the same of the NSO. I will provide 10 great examples:

1) YOU GUYS WON'T ACCEPT THE LULZ TERM?!?!?! - No actually, we have a certain level of self-respect and integrity. Get used to it.

2) Omg, you guys don't wanna surrender - No actually, we feel an honourable exit on equal terms would be respectable and fair since we only have been honouring our friendships and treaties.

3) YOU TREATED US LIKE DIRT ON IRC - Please, every alliance has fools who misconduct themselves. The government has represented this case fairly enough.

4) You were part of the Hegemony. hatehatehatehate - Only someone really desperate would need to resort to this story, bursting into tears. Of course, it's an outright lie and completely absurd. Personally, I fancy it [i]reductio ad hegemonium[/i].

5) I don't like you or anything you stand for - And? If you don't like us, go on and kill us. Don't waste your time scoring brownie points here.

6) There was the time you guys THREATENED US WITH DISBANDMENT - If only we took every time someone trash-talked and we didn't like and attacked... oh wait, that already happened. It was called Shark Week, if I recall, and GOONS had a good time with it. I am sure Fark remembers GOONS and their actions quite well. In any event, all alliances are obviously accountable for every word of each member. Maybe I ought to change AA right now and just start making threats.

7) But you made mhawk pay $1!!! - Other alliances have other principles. We don't waste our time converting or expecting others to follow us. It's not our job to tell others what to do.

8) If only you would come and make us a formal offer we would... - Correction, we already did. White peace with no re-entry and an admission of defeat. It's funny because I see no one bothering to accept or refuse it. This is the only detail that matters.

9) You have made no attempts at negotiation - I don't understand how one can argue this when the whole issue at hand is precisely that negotiations have failed. Obviously this is either complete stupidity or they're just digging.

10) Couldn't we just change the wording of admission of defeat? - No. The general membership refuses to surrender and asks for white peace. Changing the wording from anything but such an admission is surrender.

Can we just have you write a full list already? It's kind of annoying hearing it broken-up and regurgitated in every second or third post.

Can we just get on to the point at hand already? Everyone is arguing bullocks. The only thing that matters is whether Fark will accept Ivan's offer or not, so let's bring on the Fark government already so they can accept or reject it and end this monstrosity of a thread.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Pedron Niall

[Tomcat]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 06:30 PM' timestamp='1267151637' post='2204244']
No point to argue with someone that had one goal in this announcement, and that was to attack our alliance.
Also nice one liner to you to my good sir.
[/quote] Well, if i'm the second wrongest man in history, it should be pretty easy to show me why. If the answers to these statements are so simple and obvious and everybody knows them, why can't you just state them? I came into the thread with a write up about what was apparent in this announcement. That you won't even bother to give me more than a one sentence response speaks more to the idea that you just would rather not let this thread go somewhere that you don't want it to go, which is ironically, back to the topic this thread was initially supposed to be about.


[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 February 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1267152129' post='2204267']
actually, almost all of those have been addressed through the 48 pages of thread. read it all and you will have the answers you seek. the fact that you have not seen these points addressed shows that you did not read this thread.
[/quote]

Then why not just state them here if you know they all have been addressed and stated in this thread?

Edited February 26, 2010 by Tomcat

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='25 February 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1267152882' post='2204287']
Then why not just state them here if you know they all have been addressed and stated in this thread?
[/quote]

why should i? i read the entire 48 pages. if you would actually take the time to peruse it instead of stating you already have done this then you would be able to address your own answers. if you were asking a new question i could see where you could get indignant about not being answered, but your questions are old and tired and have been answered. to be honest, i am fairly certain i answered part of your questions already in a few posts within the last few pages (5 or so pages).

[Tomcat]

I would respond to your post Doctarigh but it appears that is was already addressed a number of pages ago in this thread so heres a one sentence response with no real content instead.

I can play this game too.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='25 February 2010 - 09:00 PM' timestamp='1267153456' post='2204302']
I would respond to your post Doctarigh but it appears that is was already addressed a number of pages ago in this thread so heres a one sentence response with no real content instead.

I can play this game too.
[/quote]

sounds good to me. hint though, you did reply to my post. good try though.

[Torak]

[quote name='Pedron Niall' date='25 February 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1267152546' post='2204278']
All I seem to see the opposition doing in this thread is whining about a list of grievances which they continually keep adding to, which is quite ironic since they enjoying accusing the same of the NSO. I will provide 10 great examples:

1) YOU GUYS WON'T ACCEPT THE LULZ TERM?!?!?! - No actually, we have a certain level of self-respect and integrity. Get used to it.

2) Omg, you guys don't wanna surrender - No actually, we feel an honourable exit on equal terms would be respectable and fair since we only have been honouring our friendships and treaties.

3) YOU TREATED US LIKE DIRT ON IRC - Please, every alliance has fools who misconduct themselves. The government has represented this case fairly enough.

4) You were part of the Hegemony. hatehatehatehate - Only someone really desperate would need to resort to this story, bursting into tears. Of course, it's an outright lie and completely absurd. Personally, I fancy it [i]reductio ad hegemonium[/i].

5) I don't like you or anything you stand for - And? If you don't like us, go on and kill us. Don't waste your time scoring brownie points here.

6) There was the time you guys THREATENED US WITH DISBANDMENT - If only we took every time someone trash-talked and we didn't like and attacked... oh wait, that already happened. It was called Shark Week, if I recall, and GOONS had a good time with it. I am sure Fark remembers GOONS and their actions quite well. In any event, all alliances are obviously accountable for every word of each member. Maybe I ought to change AA right now and just start making threats.

7) But you made mhawk pay $1!!! - Other alliances have other principles. We don't waste our time converting or expecting others to follow us. It's not our job to tell others what to do.

8) If only you would come and make us a formal offer we would... - Correction, we already did. White peace with no re-entry and an admission of defeat. It's funny because I see no one bothering to accept or refuse it. This is the only detail that matters.

9) You have made no attempts at negotiation - I don't understand how one can argue this when the whole issue at hand is precisely that negotiations have failed. Obviously this is either complete stupidity or they're just digging.

10) Couldn't we just change the wording of admission of defeat? - No. The general membership refuses to surrender and asks for white peace. Changing the wording from anything but such an admission is surrender.

Can we just have you write a full list already? It's kind of annoying hearing it broken-up and regurgitated in every second or third post.

Can we just get on to the point at hand already? Everyone is arguing bullocks. The only thing that matters is whether Fark will accept Ivan's offer or not, so let's bring on the Fark government already so they can accept or reject it and end this monstrosity of a thread.
[/quote]

I like you

Have you considered joining the Sith?

[Reason]

[quote name='DjTorak' date='25 February 2010 - 10:07 PM' timestamp='1267153883' post='2204308']
I like you

Have you considered joining the Sith?
[/quote]
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=388724

After watching this thread, I decided to join. Thanks, though.

[kevin32891]

[b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b] Anyone in our position would feel the same way, so don't play that card here.
[b]
NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b]This is a good one, Fark DW on us for their treaty with FOK.
[b]
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b]NpO doesn't have a treaty with IRON, but we do. Again nice try.

[b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b]First it was only one ally.(IRON)

[b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b] We did but because of treaty obligations, and we countered Fark so that our allies in Hydra and Terra Cotta would be able to peace out easier and stay out of the war completely.

[b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b]I have no problem with that, NpO signed a treaty with them so they have to follow suit just as we did.
[b]
So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b]I'm not made about that at all. What makes me upset is that with all the alliances that attacked us they chose to defend us on only one front and poorly.

[b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b]See above.

[b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b]We didn't support the attack on C&G. They had their own coalition planning. Also how about Polaris' allies in C&G that had their allies attack us? Wouldn't that have put NpO in a precarious position as well?

Now that I have proven you wrong, please leave with your tail between your legs thanks. As for the links, go find them yourself.

Edited February 26, 2010 by kevin32891

[Lord Brendan]

[quote]10) Couldn't we just change the wording of admission of defeat? - No. The general membership refuses to surrender and asks for white peace. Changing the wording from anything but such an admission is surrender.[/quote]

Honestly, this is fine. You guys don't want to surrender, cool. Eventually either we'll tire on stomping of you or you'll tire of being stomped, and one of us will bend. You have the most to lose by dragging this out unnecessarily, however.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1267152129' post='2204267']
if you really wish to go there, tell me which one of these terms are IC and which is not?

send $1 reparation in game
write a beer review
[/quote]

[OOC]Both of them are IC terms. Only the former is an action performed in-game, but they are both entirely In Character. When you see someone say "you must buy a beer in real life, drink it and then tell us about it", then you can complain about OOC terms. Those completing the review are free to make it up completely if they want, or put a humorous IC spin on it and review the Beer bonus resource. It has also been mentioned that alternatives to beer are available; such as a video game review.

If you disagree, take it up with moderation. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=81164[/OOC]

Edited February 26, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='25 February 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1267155235' post='2204343']
Honestly, this is fine. You guys don't want to surrender, cool. Eventually either we'll tire on stomping of you or you'll tire of being stomped, and one of us will bend. You have the most to lose by dragging this out unnecessarily, however.
[/quote]
Not me, I already lost most of my infra. A little more wouldn't hurt me that much, I would just be nuking the lower ranks which makes me pretty happy.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1267155813' post='2204354']
Not me, I already lost most of my infra. A little more wouldn't hurt me that much, I would just be nuking the lower ranks which makes me pretty happy.
[/quote]

The opportunity cost for you having to collect in anarchy and at low infrastructure is greater than the damage you inflict on our small nations, I believe. We are in a better position to recover from it as well, as most of our large nations are no longer fighting and can send aid, whereas most of yours are in peace mode (where they cannot send aid) or fighting wars of their own.

Enjoy the fight, wish I could participate

Edited February 26, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Mussolandia]

We are 140 nations and 1.2 million NS. You're a large bloc wielding large weapons against a just, determined foe.

You are big and we are small. We're fast and you are slow. We're hidden and you're exposed.

There's little you can take from us and lots we can take from you.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Mussolandia

[Tomcat]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='25 February 2010 - 07:18 PM' timestamp='1267154503' post='2204322']
[b]It seems to me that this announcement is about NSO being butthurt over NpO accepting peace.[/b] Anyone in our position would feel the same way, so don't play that card here.[/quote] Fair enough.

[quote]
[b]
NSO is fighting FARK because NSO decided to back up IRON.[/b]This is a good one, Fark DW on us for their treaty with FOK.
[b][/quote] Who did you declare on in support of IRON?
[quote]
NpO has no treaty obligation to help IRON, and technically NSO doesn't either, if I'm reading the treaty web correctly.[/b]NpO doesn't have a treaty with IRON, but we do. Again nice try.[/quote] That was my point. NpO honored the treaties that they had, and did not honor treaties they did not have.

[quote][b]Your allies attacked Polar's allies. Without treaty.[/b]First it was only one ally.(IRON)

[b]NSO backed up IRON) in their attack.[/b] We did but because of treaty [b]obligations[/b][/quote]Obligated or Optional?

[quote][b]NpO backed up (MK) in their defense.[/b]I have no problem with that, NpO signed a treaty with them so they have to follow suit just as we did.[/quote] Fair enough.
[quote]
[b]
So really it appears to me that you're getting mad at NpO for following their treaties.[/b]I'm not made about that at all. What makes me upset is that with all the alliances that attacked us they chose to defend us on only one front and poorly.[/quote] On what other fronts were they obligated to defend you? And have you considered that they may have had their hands full already considering they had been fighting on so many fronts already?

[quote][b]You guys are upset because NpO fulfilled a mutual defense treaty instead of ignoring it and helping you guys in your attack.[/b]See above.[/quote] The points stands that they were obliged to defend their allies in CnG. They've been obligated to defend a lot of people, including NSO.

[quote][b]That's pretty messed up for you to expect them to back you 100% when YOU put them in such a precarious position by supporting the attack on their allies in the first place.[/b]We didn't support the attack on C&G. They had their own coalition planning. Also how about Polaris' allies in C&G that had their allies attack us? Wouldn't that have put NpO in a precarious position as well?[/quote]Of course. But which happened first? The attack or the counter attack? You made a DoW on the same night as the coalition that attacked CnG. Were we all mistaken to believe that it was to support the attack on CnG?

[quote]
Now that I have proven you wrong, please leave with your tail between your legs thanks. As for the links, go find them yourself.
[/quote]
Well I certainly do have something between my legs but I've never had it called a tail before, though i suppose i can see the resemblance.

Props for actually responding to the points I made instead of just dismissing it all in one sentence. I know putting effort into debating is hard but I do appreciate the effort.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='25 February 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1267156414' post='2204365']
We are 140 nations and 1.2 million NS. You're a large bloc wielding large weapons against a just, determined foe.

You are big and we are small. We're fast and you are slow. We're hidden and you're exposed.

There's little you can take from us and lots we can take from you.
[/quote]

Not sure where you get the fast/slow and hidden/exposed, but I guess the rest are true.

As I've said multiple times, I expect that sooner or later if you haven't surrendered we'll just let you get off with only the admission of defeat, and maybe you'll think it was worth it.

[Krack]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='25 February 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1267151836' post='2204253']
actually it was a war that Polaris started and they hit FOK who gave them white peace. Fark and GOD hit NSO. NSO then hit CSN to try and give a reprieve to STA who also got white peace. GO then hit NSO.
[/quote]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79546"]NSO DoW on FARK[/url]

Contains this gem:

[i]"The New Sith Order counter declares on Farkistan in order to acknowledge this as an offensive war that we are undertaking on our own without the assistance of any other alliance."[/i]

[quote]but no of course they are not based in reality whatsoever. i mean it is not like the prevailing attitude from the majority within CN for a while now has been that if you enter a war via treaty obligations you should get white peace.[/quote]

Complete equine feces.

[quote]not to mention, in my opinion, hitting an alliance that has lost 70%+ of their original NS and then giving them what that alliance considers terms they cannot accept is just pathetic. they are obviously not a threat to anyone but we have 4 alliances that are continuing to pound them. i mean, that to me screams WUT/1V/friends pounding on FAN for so long. that screams GOONS pounding on Fark for so long. but hey, obviously Fark is all grown up as is CSN and despite the actions that have occurred to them in the past, they now wish to act like those who have destroyed them in the past. [/quote]

Hmm ... Let's take a look at the GOONS/FARK peace agreement and see if we can make some comparisons to the current FARK/NSO negotiations:

[color="#0000FF"]II. Terms

1. Fark solemnly swears never to raise arms against the Goon Order or any of Her allies.[/color]

One term in and we're already on eternal terms.

[color="#0000FF"]2. Fark must publicly state that theblitz is "a *!%@$". In this public statement Fark will also apologize to the nations it has coerced into doing tech and donation deals with Fark, knowing full well it would make them Enemies of GOONS.[/color]

Made to publicly denounce former members.

[color="#0000FF"]3. Fark must designate 5 nations of 5,000 NS or greater from the 15 top Fark nations to send all of their post-bills income to specified GOONS, to be delivered 3 times per month. The nations may be re-chosen on the 1st of each month, but all must be above 5,000 NS at the time they are chosen.[/color]

Reparations ... we'll get to the duration a little later in the agreement.

[color="#0000FF"]4. Shark Week is in effect for Fark nations.[/color]

The winner just being _____ because they can ("We can attack you whenever we feel like it.").

[color="#0000FF"]5. Fark nations may not own nuclear weapons.[/color]

Military limitations (again, we'll get to the duration).

[color="#0000FF"]6. If Fark ever takes an offensive action against us, against any of our allies, or in any way that could be interpreted as "opposed to GOONS", they will be subject to full nuclear reprisal and all perma-ZIed. At this point, any sort of peace will be eternally off the table.[/color]

Threats of perma-ZI.

[color="#0000FF"]7. Daemon banned member shall be installed as Viceroy of Fark and given full access and admin rights to all Fark forums, as well as veto power over all governmental Fark actions. Actions capable of being vetoed include any laws, constitutional amendments, declarations of war and foreign treaties that he feels may directly affect the Goon Order or its allies[/color]

Viceroy, including forum access

[color="#0000FF"]8. Fark nations may only do Donation Deals with Fark nations or GOONS nations unless given explicit permission by a member of the GOONS Closet.[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]
III. Retribution

Any Fark nation found breaking this treaty will be ZIed without a trial. If the alliance in general defaults on this agreement every Fark nation will be subject to full nuclear annihilation, forever and always, with no hope for peace.[/color]

Again, we're back to perma-ZI

[color="#0000FF"]IV. Duration

This document remains in effect for one year from the time it takes effect. GOONS may, at their discretion, choose to decrease the time required for any individual term or terms.[/color]

One year. One year! [b]ONE YEAR.[/b]

-----------------

Okay, let's look at the FARK offer to NSO:

[color="#FF0000"](paraphrase)
[i]"Stop fighting, don't aid anybody while the war is going on, and write one beer review."[/i][/color]

To conclude, if you continue to compare these two situations, all you are doing is stamping "I don't have a clue" on your forehead and begging people stop paying attention to what you have to say.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Krack

[Schattenmann]

Oh man, I'm rolling over the serious Senioritis that Grub is displaying; I can just see his middle finger up and feet on his desk.

[quote name='AlmightyGrub' date='24 February 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1266993796' post='2200906']
I do, if I could turn back time, this would be where I went.
[/quote]

[b]If I could turn back time[/b]
[img]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/cndump/RP%20Threads/001.jpg[/img]
If I could turn back time
If I could find a way I'd take back those words that hurt you and you'd stay

I don't know why I did the things I did I don't know why I said the things I said
Pride's like a knife it can cut deep inside
Words are like weapons they wound sometimes.

I didn't really mean to hurt you I didn't wanna see you go I know I made you cry, but baby

[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/cndump/RP%20Threads/002.jpg[/IMG]

If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back those words that hurt you
And you'd stay
If I could reach the stars
I'd give them all to you
Then you'd love me, love me
Like you used to do

[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/cndump/RP%20Threads/003.jpg[/IMG]

If I could turn back time

My world was shattered I was torn apart
Like someone took a knife and drove it deep in my heart
You walked out that door I swore that I didn't care
But I lost everything darling then and there

Too strong to tell you I was sorry
Too proud to tell you I was wrong
I know that I was blind, and ooh...

[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/cndump/RP%20Threads/004.jpg[/IMG]

Ooohh

If I could turn back time
If I could turn back time
If I could turn back time
ooh baby

I didn't really mean to hurt you
I didn't want to see you go
I know I made you cry
Ooohh

If I could turn back time
If I could find a way
I'd take back those words that hurt you
If I could reach the stars
I'd give them all to you
Then you'd love me, love me
Like you used to do

[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff246/cndump/RP%20Threads/005.jpg[/IMG]

If I could turn back time (turn back time)
If I could find a way (find a way)
Then baby, maybe, maybe
You'd stay

[Earogema]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='25 February 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1267156414' post='2204365']
We are 140 nations and 1.2 million NS. You're a large bloc wielding large weapons against a just, determined foe.

You are big and we are small. We're fast and you are slow. We're hidden and you're exposed.

There's little you can take from us and lots we can take from you.
[/quote]
To hear Mussolandia say those words. It took so long, but to hear it.

It's beautiful ;_;

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='25 February 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1267156414' post='2204365']
We are 140 nations and 1.2 million NS. You're a large bloc wielding large weapons against a just, determined foe.

You are big and we are small. We're fast and you are slow. We're hidden and you're exposed.

There's little you can take from us and lots we can take from you.
[/quote]

We coulda used you in Vox Populi

[Penkala]

[quote]ooc: so wait, NSO rejected an OOC term that required them to go out and do something completely unrelated to CN and then post on the CN forums about something completely unrelated to the game in order to gain peace in an entirely IC aspect of the game? not to mention they were told that this term would indicate that they surrender to Fark, which is something they are unwilling to do.[/quote]

You're telling me no member of the New Sith Order drinks alcoholic beverages at all? And that they'd literally have to go out and purchase some to drink because they have none, and because they won't have any in the next week or two?

(ooc: hard to believe given this game's demographic.)

Then [i]fake it[/i]. Write two paragraphs about Bud Light or something.

(ooc: their issue isn't that they need to go out and buy something and drink it, so stop arguing that. Their issue is that they have to [i]surrender[/i] and erase their undefeated record. If we told them to write a review about their computer they were using they'd still be pissed and they wouldn't be buying anything.)

[quote]not to mention they were told that this term would indicate that they surrender to Fark, which is something they are unwilling to do.[/quote]

So you're saying that because they're 'unwilling' to surrender we're not supposed to make them surrender? WHAT? So what if they were 'unwilling' to accept anything but us paying 10,000 tech reps? Would we then be obligated since they entered on an OA treaty? [i]Seriously?[/i] Your entire argument is "they do not want to do x therefore you must not make them do x." Fine, then the war continues. That's how this works. You do what we find must happen for us to stop bashing your brains in. We're not asking for anything but two paragraphs of text. We're not going any lower - at least not for a long time. We'd rather fight.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Penkala

[Harry Dresden]

Okay, I'm closing this thread. It's derailed numerous times and it's time to put it to bed.