Objective of the War on NSO?

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Jrenster' timestamp='1281449232' post='2409608']
I will never accept these atrocious terms.
[/quote]

You wound me, dear sir. Srsly though, you should drop by.

[Aurion]

I'll be a fair bit disappointed if there isn't a beer review in the terms.

Just for the amusement value. It might even get people to complain about how immoral they are.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Aurion

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281439902' post='2409505']Also, two posts to mention 'we're not as bad as NPO'? Seriously? Ironic, too, considering RoK are about the only non-Hegemony alliance to actually have imposed a viceroy which seems to be your only argument.
[/quote]

Oh no you don't, Bob. First of all, the Illuminati requested a viceroy. I know, that doesn't make a lot of sense but it was Terry Howard and he was trying to appease the alliances fighting him at the time. Secondly, that wasn't a RoK thing, that was a group decision involving Superfriends [b]and[/b] the CDT.

Why was I chosen and why did I agree then? Again, because Terry Howard [b]requested[/b] me. I was one of the few (along with Cable of FARK at the time) who argued against and fought against the idea of disbanding the Illuminati. I was also one of the few who didn't want harsh reps or crippling terms seeing as the Illuminati had just been rolled.

There are logs if FARK still has them, not that it won't shut up the usual crowd that sits and shouts about how "evil" Ragnarok is. Heh.

Note: That last line was not in reference to you, Bob.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1281458108' post='2409790']
Oh no you don't, Bob. First of all, the Illuminati requested a viceroy. I know, that doesn't make a lot of sense but it was Terry Howard and he was trying to appease the alliances fighting him at the time. Secondly, that wasn't a RoK thing, that was a group decision involving Superfriends [b]and[/b] the CDT.

Why was I chosen and why did I agree then? Again, because Terry Howard [b]requested[/b] me. I was one of the few (along with Cable of FARK at the time) who argued against and fought against the idea of disbanding the Illuminati. I was also one of the few who didn't want harsh reps or crippling terms seeing as the Illuminati had just been rolled.

There are logs if FARK still has them, not that it won't shut up the usual crowd that sits and shouts about how "evil" Ragnarok is. Heh.

Note: That last line was not in reference to you, Bob.
[/quote]
Yeah, I can confirm all this stuff actually, except the reason why Hoo was chosen (which may well be the truth, I just don't have direct knowledge, so can't confirm it).

Illuminati were beyond saving, though. The war cemented what had been true for a long time: they had no alliance structure at all. When we hit them, we just got wave after wave of surrender offer right away.

IIRC we were taking surrenders something like 2 days into the war. It was just ... pathetic.

(I tend to bring up the Hoo-was-a-viceroy business in a different context: Not all viceroys have been the horrifying personas of evil that they are frequently made out to be.)

[Daikos]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1281433174' post='2409428']
The point of the war is to give everyone the opportunity to start their own thread about it, obviously.
[/quote]

I'm absolutely devestated that you posted this before I had a chance to.

So I'll go with objective 2: forcing NSO to disband unless NPO enters the war. Because something something Hegemony something worse than we were something.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1281439902' post='2409505']
Also, two posts to mention 'we're not as bad as NPO'? Seriously? Ironic, too, considering RoK are about the only non-Hegemony alliance to actually have imposed a viceroy which seems to be your only argument.
[/quote]
The viceroy and NPO stuff was brought in by a member of ODN and NPOers reacted as one would expect, I think in all honesty it would be ridiculous to assume that there will be a viceroy. Also IMO if a one side is willing to make amends to the issue than that is punishment enough.

Edited August 10, 2010 by shahenshah

[Goldie]

Not sure what exactly will be the final terms, hard to put something like 'NSO learned their lesson' into terms. One thing that will be in the final terms is this line (or something similar) right on top:

[quote]We, the New Sith Order, hereby surrender to Ragnarok, the Viridian Entente, The Global Order of Darkness, R&R, and TENE, and agree to the following terms:[/quote]

[der_ko]

I do hope the objective includes one beer review.

[Bilrow]

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1281461339' post='2409868']
I'm absolutely devestated that you posted this before I had a chance to.

So I'll go with objective 2: forcing NSO to disband unless NPO enters the war. Because something something Hegemony something worse than we were something.
[/quote]



That would be interesting. Blackmail NSO to get NPO into the war.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1281461339' post='2409868']Because something something Hegemony something worse than we were something.[/quote]

This is probably the best line in the thread, if only because it can be said by anyone on any side of any conflict.

[Andre27]

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1281429807' post='2409370']
Provided NSO's allies don't get involved, I think the reps will be relatively light. This isn't a major war, NSO isn't a large alliance, and Ragnarok and friends won't take much damage from them. They can't really demand enormous reparations anyway, as NSO can't pay them.

I don't expect to see a Viceroy or anything like that either. SF aren't NPO.
[/quote]

How will they not get involved when this is clearly a defensive war for NSO?
This war has the potential to go all over planet bob. Few are safe from the entangled web of treaties.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Andre27

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1281484230' post='2410384']
How will they not get involved when this is clearly a defensive war for NSO?
This war has the potential to go all over planet bob. Few are safe from the entangled web of treaties.
[/quote]
....except that most of them have said they'll be staying out.

[Matthew Conrad]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1281431035' post='2409393']
I feel that still remains to be seen, if the war starts to drag on now, then I suspect alot of people will go with the line of 'there was something more to this than just 6m and a rogue situation', generally what you are suggesting.

What if there is peace tomorrow? What if the terms are
- Rogue responsible for 6m,
- NSO responsible for 6m Heft sent
- The apology that everyone takes very seriously.

[/quote]

Literally the only thing this would bring about is Ivan giving us a history lesson 4-6 months down the line on how NSO fought the entirety of SF to a stalemate singlehandedly. For good measure maybe throw in a "that apology didn't mean a surrender" and presto.

As to your original query, I'd say the objective is to teach NSO a lesson in humility.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Daikos' timestamp='1281461339' post='2409868']
Because something something Hegemony something worse than we were something.
[/quote]

Daikos I hate your guts, but this line was pretty funny.

[Caleb279]

The rouge gets ZI'd, NSO pays 6mil reps. That's what it should be.

It'll end in a week...maybe less.

[Heft]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1281486211' post='2410434']
As to your original query, I'd say the objective is to teach NSO a lesson in humility.
[/quote]
By making us the center of everyone's attention for an extended period of time? I don't think this was thought through all that well.

[Mirreille]

[quote name='Andre27' timestamp='1281484230' post='2410384']
How will they not get involved when this is clearly a defensive war for NSO?
This war has the potential to go all over planet bob. Few are safe from the entangled web of treaties.
[/quote]

I may be missing something, but from the way RoK worded their DoW, it seems like they consider themselves to be the injured party, i.e. NSO committed acts of war against them. That would make this a defensive war for RoK & friends, no?

[Qaianna]

[quote name='Mirreille' timestamp='1281503033' post='2410816']
I may be missing something, but from the way RoK worded their DoW, it seems like they consider themselves to be the injured party, i.e. NSO committed acts of war against them. That would make this a defensive war for RoK & friends, no?
[/quote]
Certain other alliances have made similar arguments. They generally were ridiculed for such reasoning. Hasn't it been generally decided by the winners of the Karma War that you don't get to call something defensive if you're the one declaring war?

To answer Andre's question better, if memory serves the New Sith Order had requested its allies' nonparticipation in hostilities. The reasons are for the Order and its allies to understand, as well as those they wish to illuminate. (Wish I were one of the ones in the know.)

As far as how long the war will go on? Well, some people have shown a rather bloody-minded fixation on getting a surrender out of someone else. How well has history treated them so far? Ragnarok and its current allies may wish to learn from prior examples.

[Caleb279]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1281504805' post='2410858']
Certain other alliances have made similar arguments. They generally were ridiculed for such reasoning. Hasn't it been generally decided by the winners of the Karma War that you don't get to call something defensive if you're the one declaring war?

To answer Andre's question better, if memory serves the New Sith Order had requested its allies' nonparticipation in hostilities. The reasons are for the Order and its allies to understand, as well as those they wish to illuminate. (Wish I were one of the ones in the know.)

As far as how long the war will go on? Well, some people have shown a rather bloody-minded fixation on getting a surrender out of someone else. How well has history treated them so far? Ragnarok and its current allies may wish to learn from prior examples.
[/quote]
Post of the thread right here.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1281486211' post='2410434']
Literally the only thing this would bring about is Ivan giving us a history lesson 4-6 months down the line on how NSO fought the entirety of SF to a stalemate singlehandedly. For good measure maybe throw in a "that apology didn't mean a surrender" and presto.

As to your original query, I'd say the objective is to teach NSO a lesson in humility.
[/quote]

Humility through humiliation does not works, just like an apology with the gun on your head.

Regarding history lessons, so one man's words hold you to what you should or should not do? its the words you dont agree with, I dont see how you can be concerned about it. Boosting his ego right here lol.

Edited August 11, 2010 by shahenshah

[Voytek]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1281477529' post='2410214']I think in all honesty it would be ridiculous to assume that there will be a viceroy.[/quote]
It's hilarious that the word viceroy was even mentioned.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Certain other alliances have made similar arguments. They generally were ridiculed for such reasoning. Hasn't it been generally decided by the winners of the Karma War that you don't get to call something defensive if you're the one declaring war?[/quote]
Quite right. RoK is the offended party, they considered the offence grave enough to go to war and they (along with GOD, R&R and VE) started an aggressive war as a result. It's a longstanding precedent that 'he said bad things about/spied on/aided an enemy of me' doesn't mean you're in a defensive war ... in fact such a thing is ridiculous because none of those things puts you in a war [i]at all[/i].

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Qaianna' timestamp='1281504805' post='2410858']
Certain other alliances have made similar arguments. They generally were ridiculed for such reasoning. Hasn't it been generally decided by the winners of the Karma War that you don't get to call something defensive if you're the one declaring war?

To answer Andre's question better, if memory serves the New Sith Order had requested its allies' nonparticipation in hostilities. The reasons are for the Order and its allies to understand, as well as those they wish to illuminate. (Wish I were one of the ones in the know.)

As far as how long the war will go on? Well, some people have shown a rather bloody-minded fixation on getting a surrender out of someone else. How well has history treated them so far? Ragnarok and its current allies may wish to learn from prior examples.
[/quote]

ahhh but see, the issue is, anything can be done and an enemy can be treated in any manner without really any regards and the enemy just [i]has[/i] to accept it. Why, you may ask, because NPO/co did worse. that is it. or course when pressed to find out what NPO did that was so much worse, we get things like viceroys (basically banned now) and forced disbandments (which i feel you can't honestly force another alliance to disband, it will be the members who decide that fate). though as has been pointed out, in this case RoK has imposed a viceroy and GOD has forced alliances to disband. Other things that get thrown out are flimsy CBs ya know like going to war over $6 million dollars, or declaring war in the middle of negotiations...

well umm... NPO did worse now by.... ummmm... hold on give me a minute something will come to me. Ah yes, the true stand by- attacking smaller alliances for the hell of it *gets memo that NSO is smaller than RoK by itself, way smaller than RoK, VE, GOD, RnR, and TENE...* humph... oh oh i got it, by attacking their allies. yeah bet no one on SG's side has done that.... aiight, aiight no one has lost a war yet claimed otherwise. damn, they got me finally. they are not nearly as bad as NPO because when they lose a war, they don't claim otherwise.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Dochartaigh

[King Chill I]

You guys are all blind if you cant see it.

The obvious answer is UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

[Daimos]

[quote name='King Chill I' timestamp='1281534808' post='2411082']
You guys are all blind if you cant see it.

The obvious answer is UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.
[/quote]


Heh you beat me to it.