Ivan Moldavi Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='27 February 2010 - 11:56 AM' timestamp='1267290021' post='2206631'] I still fail to see how you would stand by your word if the wording was changed. It would still be a surrender even if they used another word. A duck is still a duck even if you call it an elephant. If you want to resign because you couldn't technically stay true to your word that's your decision but you're not getting any martyr points from me. [/quote] That isn't true. A defeated alliance isn't the same as a surrendering one. A defeated alliance can still fight and is allowed to leave the field with some honor. Forcing our surrender only illustrated the lack of honor on the part of our opponents considering the only reasons we were even in this Cluster$%&@ War was to support our allies. If the NSO had been one of the protagonists of this war then surrender on our part in the face of such overwhelming odds would have been expected and non completely unwelcome. But we weren't. We entered to honor our friends and allies and we gave more (as a percentage) than anyone else for that effort. Whether my personal actions deserved it or not, my alliance deserved better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name='AirMe' date='27 February 2010 - 08:46 AM' timestamp='1267289407' post='2206616'] Because 1 aid slot is giving the finger to someone. Overreact much? Next thing you will be telling me is that you would rather pay reps than do a beer/milk/wine/cheese review. [/quote] Well it is an interesting implication that I must accept something for someone I'm not related to get peace. My main objection is that it makes it seem like NSO is paying TPF back for war profits or something. The reason that is upsetting is that NSO was one of the few amiable alliances we dealt with in that war, I'd rather it not be seen that we wanted anything from them. Edited February 27, 2010 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='27 February 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1267290366' post='2206641'] Well it is an interesting implication that I must accept something for someone I'm not related to get peace. [/quote] I understand that and that is why it is a stupid term. But it still doesn't deserve the reaction DK gave it. If you like I will send you 3 mill to make up for absurdity of the whole thing. Even though I am not involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name='AirMe' date='27 February 2010 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1267290477' post='2206643'] I understand that and that is why it is a stupid term. But it still doesn't deserve the reaction DK gave it. If you like I will send you 3 mill to make up for absurdity of the whole thing. Even though I am not involved. [/quote] I don't need the money, I was just planning on sending in our aid wave to allies that fared worse than us in this mess of a war. It's only one slot, but it's stupid. Plus I updated my post to add a bit more. Edited February 27, 2010 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='27 February 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1267290366' post='2206641'] Well it is an interesting implication that I must accept something for someone I'm not related to get peace. My main objection is that it makes it seem like NSO is paying TPF back for war profits or something. The reason that is upsetting is that NSO was one of the few amiable alliances we dealt with in that war, I'd rather it not be seen that we wanted anything from them. [/quote] Well, the terms stipulated that it be sent, which it was. If you wish to decline it then you can. It would be interesting to see if Fark re-declares over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='27 February 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1267290598' post='2206648'] I don't need the money, I was just planning on sending in our aid wave to allies that fared worse than us in this mess of a war. Plus I updated my post to add a bit more. [/quote] Tell me where to send the 3 mill and I will do it on your behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote]Next thing you will be telling me is that you would rather pay reps than do a beer/milk/wine/cheese review.[/quote] I'd rather pay small reps than do one of those OOC reviews. No offense, I just don't think OOC terms should exist, even if they're meant as friendly ones. That said, NSO has fought well. Good luck with the rebuilding efforts, Siths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='27 February 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1267290244' post='2206638'] That isn't true. A defeated alliance isn't the same as a surrendering one. A defeated alliance can still fight and is allowed to leave the field with some honor. Forcing our surrender only illustrated the lack of honor on the part of our opponents considering the only reasons we were even in this Cluster$%&@ War was to support our allies. If the NSO had been one of the protagonists of this war then surrender on our part in the face of such overwhelming odds would have been expected and non completely unwelcome. But we weren't. We entered to honor our friends and allies and we gave more (as a percentage) than anyone else for that effort. Whether my personal actions deserved it or not, my alliance deserved better. [/quote] It still looks like a semantics issue to me. If you had gotten the exact same terms but with the word surrender changed to admission of defeat nothing would have changed. I think it's a big loss for NSO to lose you as emperor and I do think they deserved better after this war. As I stated in my first post I don't think nso deserved any harsh reps since you did enter because of a treaty. The part I don't agree with is that you were in any way forced to resign as emperor. That was your own decision. [quote name='mhawk' date='27 February 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1267290366' post='2206641'] Well it is an interesting implication that I must accept something for someone I'm not related to get peace. [/quote] For crying out loud. I know you love to blow things way out of proportion and go all martyr on us but nobody is forcing you to accept the aid. There's no propaganda points to win here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name='AirMe' date='27 February 2010 - 10:46 AM' timestamp='1267289407' post='2206616'] Because 1 aid slot is giving the finger to someone. Overreact much? Next thing you will be telling me is that you would rather pay reps than do a beer/milk/wine/cheese review. [/quote] I would argue that it is. TPF was not involved in the NSO-Fark War and yet they have one of their aid slots, which they probably need to rebuild, compromised in a surrender term for an entirely difference front. As for the reviews in general, I think that they are reprehensible and juvenile, the equivalent of making an alliance give itself a swirlie before they are allowed to surrender. It just puts salt on the wound. But that is not what this conversation is about and I will leave it at that. I agree with Yevgeni Luchenkov. Edited February 27, 2010 by Duncan King Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='27 February 2010 - 09:06 AM' timestamp='1267290629' post='2206649'] Well, the terms stipulated that it be sent, which it was. If you wish to decline it then you can. It would be interesting to see if Fark re-declares over it. [/quote] I already accepted it. You guys were kind enough to us last war that anything on my part that would slow peace for you is unacceptable. Whole thing seems a bit silly, though I'm glad NSO is out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 If you resign over the use of the word "surrender", that is not Fark's problem, and they in no way caused it. You resigning or not had nothing to do with Fark's offer of peace. They would have given you peace regardless of if you surrendered or not, so implying that they forced you out and that the two events are related is only because you chose to make them related, not Fark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='goldielax25' date='27 February 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1267291016' post='2206661'] If you resign over the use of the word "surrender", that is not Fark's problem, and they in no way caused it. You resigning or not had nothing to do with Fark's offer of peace. They would have given you peace regardless of if you surrendered or not, so implying that they forced you out and that the two events are related is only because you chose to make them related, not Fark. [/quote] Umm, what? That is a really stupid thing to say when Fark stated that they [i]would not [/i]give us peace unless we surrendered. How is this concept so hard to understand? Reading is your friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='27 February 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1267290737' post='2206654'] For crying out loud. I know you love to blow things way out of proportion and go all martyr on us but nobody is forcing you to accept the aid. There's no propaganda points to win here. [/quote] You need to look up the definition of martyr because you guys seem to like invoking that term for someone who asks a genuine question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Duncan King' date='27 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1267290925' post='2206658'] I would argue that it is. TPF was not involved in the NSO-Fark War and yet they have one of their aid slots, which they probably need to rebuild, compromised in a surrender term for an entirely difference front. As for the reviews in general, I think that they are reprehensible and juvenile, the equivalent of making an alliance give itself a swirlie before they are allowed to surrender. It just puts salt on the wound. But that is not what this conversation is about and I will leave it at that. I agree with Yevgeni Luchenkov. [/quote] Honestly, you supported forced disbandments and viceroys. You don't get an opinion on this. I mean, you do, but I (and many others) will promptly disregard your concerns over paying one dollar in reparations and writing two paragraphs of text. Oh, and for a bonus, this failed attempt at portraying us as evil will make people less likely to buy it if you accuse us of being evil when we actually are. Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcturus Jefferson Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) [quote name='mhawk' date='27 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1267291102' post='2206663'] You need to look up the definition of martyr because you guys seem to like invoking that term for someone who asks a genuine question. [/quote] If you were truly curious Fark has a small IRC presence, #farkistan or something similar. [quote name='Ivan Moldavi'] Umm, what? That is a really stupid thing to say when Fark stated that they would not give us peace unless we surrendered. [/quote] Which is a separate issue from you stepping down. I imagine if you complied with your alliance's wishes and refused to surrender forever that would've been viewed as acceptable. Edited February 27, 2010 by Arcturus Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='27 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1267291102' post='2206662'] Umm, what? That is a really stupid thing to say when Fark stated that they [i]would not [/i]give us peace unless we surrendered. How is this concept so hard to understand? Reading is your friend. [/quote] Right, but [i]your[/i] decision to resign over the word was [i]your[/i] decision. Had [u]you[/u] decided to not resign, then this discussion would be moot. You would have surrendered, and you would still be Emperor. Your self imposed penalty was not Fark's decision to make for you. You can't keep blaming Fark for the decisions you made for yourself that they in no way influenced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='27 February 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1267291413' post='2206668'] Which is a separate issue from you stepping down. I imagine if you complied with your alliance's wishes and refused to surrender forever that would've been viewed as acceptable. [/quote] Indeed it probably would have. At some point I had to choose to overrule the mob mentality that exists on occasion within such circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='goldielax25' date='27 February 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1267291503' post='2206673'] Right, but [i]your[/i] decision to resign over the word was [i]your[/i] decision. Had [u]you[/u] decided to not resign, then this discussion would be moot. You would have surrendered, and you would still be Emperor. Your self imposed penalty was not Fark's decision to make for you. You can't keep blaming Fark for the decisions you made for yourself that they in no way influenced. [/quote] You are exactly right, because I am not known as someone that will stand by his convictions and honor his word. If I were like most people here then you are correct, that is exactly what would have happened. Since I am not, and I expressed that fact to our opponents and asked for an alternative, which they refused, in light of that fact, we are here. I am not sure why this is such a big deal to so many people. The victors right our history, correct? I am sure it will not matter a year from now that even though I have always been a certain way and have always espoused a certain persona and upheld certain ideals that when faced with giving me a no win solution or an "easy" (according to most of you) alternative of an admission of defeat, that it will simply and forever be that I willfully and happily resigned as Emperor because I just wanted to and not because it was forced upon me, directly or indirectly, at all. Right? So, no worries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Penkala' date='27 February 2010 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1267291235' post='2206666'] Honestly, you supported forced disbandments and viceroys. You don't get an opinion on this. I mean, you do, but I (and many others) will promptly disregard your concerns over paying one dollar in reparations and writing two paragraphs of text. Oh, and for a bonus, this failed attempt at portraying us as evil will make people less likely to buy it if you accuse us of being evil when we actually are. Awesome! [/quote] To be fair to DK, no she didn't. She may have been part of an alliance that did. She may have been allied to those who do. But she was relatively outspoken against it. Granted, her attitudes have changed recently but she has never outright supported that which you claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='27 February 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1267291797' post='2206679'] To be fair to DK, no she didn't. She may have been part of an alliance that did. She may have been allied to those who do. But she was relatively outspoken against it. Granted, her attitudes have changed recently but she has never outright supported that which you claim. [/quote] Oh I know. I like DK. But she chose her friends, and she chose the side to defend when it came down to the big showdown that would determine the direction of reps, viceroys, etc. And she chose to stand by those who supported implementing viceroys, EZIs and harsh reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Penkala' date='27 February 2010 - 11:29 AM' timestamp='1267288372' post='2206591'] WaitwaitwaitwaitWAIT. Weren't you just the ones complaining of leaving the battlefield before those who cae in to defend you left? IRON (and TOP and others) came in to back you guys up and they're still fighting. How is this any different? [/quote] Well, (a) your side is claiming that IRON and TOP launched an aggressive war that had nothing to do with the NpO-\m/ war, so they were not backing up NSO, and (b) IRON's been telling its allies to get peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 [quote name='Duncan King' date='27 February 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1267290925' post='2206658'] I would argue that it is. TPF was not involved in the NSO-Fark War and yet they have one of their aid slots, which they probably need to rebuild, compromised in a surrender term for an entirely difference front. As for the reviews in general, I think that they are reprehensible and juvenile, the equivalent of making an alliance give itself a swirlie before they are allowed to surrender. It just puts salt on the wound. But that is not what this conversation is about and I will leave it at that. I agree with Yevgeni Luchenkov. [/quote] It is only OOC if you want it to be. I don't think FARK has ever said that it can't be an IC Beer Review like Maedonian Stout or AirMe's Hefenwiesen. Where was the outrage when one of the terms NPO handed to MK was to make propaganda for them? It is the same kind of thing. Yet we didn't complain, we actually liked that term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 To think all of this could have been avoided..haha. o/ Grey peace o/ Peace that is grey o/ Is that peace that is is that is grey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 I'm glad to see this. congrats on peace NSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaulamos Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 o/ GO o/ Fark o/ CSN o/ GOD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.