War Ends

[SirWilliam]

Are people really contending that, despite sustaining such damage and surrendering (at gunpoint as some of you maintain), if NSO had inflicted X amount of damage they could reasonably claim victory here? [i]Really[/i]?

[Fernando12]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1283219503' post='2436438']
Are people really contending that, despite sustaining such damage and surrendering (at gunpoint as some of you maintain), if NSO had inflicted X amount of damage they could reasonably claim victory here? [i]Really[/i]?
[/quote]
I didn't see the numbers closely but we did do almost as much damage to our attackers as what we received. They had the advantage in many ways and failed to really make any significant damage. We will rebound quickly. How did we lose? Cuz we put words up that said we did?

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283220088' post='2436451']
How did we lose? Cuz we put words up that said we did?
[/quote]

Yes - cause our words mean something while others don't .... Conveniently

[SirWilliam]

You lost because you were in such a sad state that you sought peace and summarily surrendered. This can't really be argued, it happened.

Now the stance is that stipulations don't matter and you didn't lose? Heh.

Edited August 31, 2010 by SirWilliam

[Sir Keshav IV]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283220088' post='2436451']
I didn't see the numbers closely but we did do almost as much damage to our attackers as what we received. They had the advantage in many ways and failed to really make any significant damage. We will rebound quickly. How did we lose? Cuz we signed a legal document that said we did?
[/quote]

Fixed. You signed a legal document of your "surrender" which means you more or less lost. Whether you did more damage/less damage you still legally lost. Cannot argue that at all.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1283221191' post='2436468']
Fixed. You signed a legal document of your "surrender" which means you more or less lost. Whether you did more damage/less damage you still legally lost. Cannot argue that at all.
[/quote]

Except you missed the memo where Hoo's word was law. Hoo said such a document of terms would not exist, therefore it is not a legal document.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Rayvon

[the masheen]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1283205065' post='2436140']
[color="#0000FF"]Actually, masheen, if RoK wanted to war the NPO they'd need a CB. Well, they don't really need one, but they'd have a hard time justifying the war without one, and the last thing they want is to look bad. They aren't stupid, as you may or may not know. So, when you can't get a CB on an alliance you want to hit, what do you do? Well, the next best thing is to find a smaller ally of theirs and hit it, flimsy CB or not, it doesn't matter. With any luck you'll draw them out.

Remember BDC? CIS? A few others as well. What did they all have in common? They were allied to the NpO and hit because certain parties were looking for a way to draw Polaris out. It eventually worked with Hyperion and GR, so don't worry fellows, hit enough alliances and maybe you might one day hit the jackpot.[/color]
[/quote]

Duely noted, RV. However, you're making bold assumptions here. Hoo has stated his CB and it has nothing to do with drawing out the NPO. I'm inclined to believe his word for he hasn't given me any reason not to. He has been fairly straight forward and honest about everything he has said thus far. He said aiding Sedrick would be an act of war, it was. He said [color="#FF0000"][EDIT][/color]the NSO would be given the opportunity to exit the war [color="#FF0000"]with RoK [/color]in two weeks with [s]basically[/s] no reps, and indeed you were given the opportunity.[color="#FF0000"][END EDIT][/color] Afterall, what good is a man if you can't trust his word? You have to earn trust and respect and he has done just that. Until he does something to tarnish that trust and respect (see Fernando), I will stick by and listen to what he has to say. If you want to base your facts off of suspect and hunches, by all means go ahead and do so. I try to base my beliefs on the words of people I respect (yourself included). The reason I would take his word over yours in this instance is because he was the one doing the declaring, and he is the only one who knows his intentions.

No, I don't believe this was all some diabolical scheme hatched up in the legion of doom where CnG and SF put their heads together to come up with ways to destroy the NPO. Not that I wouldn't put it past them or even mind if the did (we need more drama after all), but the circumstances of how the war started would suggest otherwise. Look at the position the NSO put Hoo in. He had said "if you aid Sedrick it will be war" and NSO went ahead and did it, which they've admitted wasn't smart. Now Hoo is in the position where if he doesn't attack he is a coward and a liar (this goes back to the whole trusting a man's word I eluded to earlier). The NSO invited the attack on themselves. Even after discovering that NSO aided sedrick, Hoo went to your government and made sure that it was an act of your government, as opposed to an act of an individual member. What kind of scheming war monger would warn you in advanced not to do something, give you an opportunity to not do it, and then double-check and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to do it? No type that I know of, because surely it wasn't his scheme to start a war to bring out the NPO, it was the aftermath of a man who kept his word.

Edited August 31, 2010 by the masheen

[the masheen]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1283221850' post='2436477']
Except you missed the memo where Hoo's word was law. Hoo said such a document of terms would not exist, therefore it is not a legal document.
[/quote]

Now you're just being absurd...

[Rayvon]

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1283222681' post='2436496']
Now you're just being absurd...
[/quote]

And the rest of this entire situation hasn't been?

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283220088' post='2436451']
How did we lose? Cuz we put words up that said we did?
[/quote]

Well yeah.

Look, I support you guys pretty far. I just got out of two rogue wars (one nuclear) and I'm going so far as to rebuild NSO nations instead of my own. But this saying it's just words puts it very close to my smell-o-meter. To me my words are my honor, who I am. And a signed contract, especially one other alliances act upon, means something. Pretending that the words don't matter doesn't make me happy. Ya'll could at least qualify how you didn't lose. How ya'll achieved a larger objective or some such thing.

[Heft]

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1283222427' post='2436486']He said the NSO would be given the opportunity to exit the war in two weeks with basically no reps, and indeed you were given the opportunity.
[/quote]
That's not actually what was said but moving on, since that's been covered plenty already.

It is fun to watch people get all upset that not everyone is validating their victory (although interestingly it's mostly not the "victors" complaining).

[Fernando12]

[quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1283220753' post='2436463']
You lost because you were in such a sad state that you sought peace and summarily surrendered. This can't really be argued, it happened.

Now the stance is that stipulations don't matter and you didn't lose? Heh.
[/quote][quote name='Sir Keshav IV' timestamp='1283221191' post='2436468']
Fixed. You signed a legal document of your "surrender" which means you more or less lost. Whether you did more damage/less damage you still legally lost. Cannot argue that at all.
[/quote]
We posted words so what. Surrendered LOL, my oh my.

We did about the same damage so we pretty much didn't lose more or less which in most definitions is about a tie.

I argued your points. See, it can be argued. A worthless document makes you all feel good? Nice.

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1283222427' post='2436486']
Duely noted, RV. However, you're making bold assumptions here. Hoo has stated his CB and it has nothing to do with drawing out the NPO. I'm inclined to believe his word for he hasn't given me any reason not to. He has been fairly straight forward and honest about everything he has said thus far. He said aiding Sedrick would be an act of war, it was. He said the NSO would be given the opportunity to exit the war in two weeks with basically no reps, and indeed you were given the opportunity. Afterall, what good is a man if you can't trust his word? You have to earn trust and respect and he has done just that. Until he does something to tarnish that trust and respect (see Fernando), I will stick by and listen to what he has to say. If you want to base your facts off of suspect and hunches, by all means go ahead and do so. I try to base my beliefs on the words of people I respect (yourself included). The reason I would take his word over yours in this instance is because he was the one doing the declaring, and he is the only one who knows his intentions.

No, I don't believe this was all some diabolical scheme hatched up in the legion of doom where CnG and SF put their heads together to come up with ways to destroy the NPO. Not that I wouldn't put it past them or even mind if the did (we need more drama after all), but the circumstances of how the war started would suggest otherwise. Look at the position the NSO put Hoo in. He had said "if you aid Sedrick it will be war" and NSO went ahead and did it, which they've admitted wasn't smart. Now Hoo is in the position where if he doesn't attack he is a coward and a liar (this goes back to the whole trusting a man's word I eluded to earlier). The NSO invited the attack on themselves. Even after discovering that NSO aided sedrick, Hoo went to your government and made sure that it was an act of your government, as opposed to an act of an individual member. What kind of scheming war monger would warn you in advanced not to do something, give you an opportunity to not do it, and then double-check and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to do it? No type that I know of, because surely it wasn't his scheme to start a war to bring out the NPO, it was the aftermath of a man who kept his word.
[/quote]
You are so naive its really amazing. Take note of what you are saying and what in the future brings war to Pacifica and we'll see if you are right.

[Moridin]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283223611' post='2436510']We posted words so what. Surrendered LOL, my oh my.

We did about the same damage so we pretty much didn't lose more or less which in most definitions is about a tie. [/quote]

This is the worst revisionism I've ever seen, and it's only been a week since the war ended.

The victor of a war is [i]not[/i] determined by who deals out the most damage. FAN lost its war with the Initiative despite dishing out significantly more damage than it received. The victor of a war is determined by who dictates terms in the peace agreement, which in this case was RoK, GOD, and the rest. Ragnarok and the rest of their group could have continued the war indefinitely if they had wanted with each of their alliances only losing a small fraction of their strength, while NSO dropped much more rapidly.

I'm not sure if you understand this or not, but the very [i]reason[/i] that alliances are forced to concede defeat in the surrender document is to prevent exactly this sort of !@#$%^&* revisionism. People remember all too well the never-ending debates about whether or not the NPO truly lost Great War I, and to correct this a black-and-white statement that an alliance is surrendering is now the standard in peace agreements. The long and short of it is, if this was a tie then the leader of your alliance would not have uttered the words "The New Sith Order hereby announces its surrender". If you had fought this to a draw you would not be making concessions at all.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Moridin

[the masheen]

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1283222427' post='2436486']
Duely noted, RV. However, you're making bold assumptions here. Hoo has stated his CB and it has nothing to do with drawing out the NPO. I'm inclined to believe his word for he hasn't given me any reason not to. He has been fairly straight forward and honest about everything he has said thus far. He said aiding Sedrick would be an act of war, it was. He said [color="#FF0000"][EDIT][/color]the NSO would be given the opportunity to exit the war [color="#FF0000"]with RoK [/color]in two weeks with [s]basically[/s] no reps, and indeed you were given the opportunity.[color="#FF0000"][END EDIT][/color] Afterall, what good is a man if you can't trust his word? You have to earn trust and respect and he has done just that. Until he does something to tarnish that trust and respect (see Fernando), I will stick by and listen to what he has to say. If you want to base your facts off of suspect and hunches, by all means go ahead and do so. I try to base my beliefs on the words of people I respect (yourself included). The reason I would take his word over yours in this instance is because he was the one doing the declaring, and he is the only one who knows his intentions.

No, I don't believe this was all some diabolical scheme hatched up in the legion of doom where CnG and SF put their heads together to come up with ways to destroy the NPO. Not that I wouldn't put it past them or even mind if the did (we need more drama after all), but the circumstances of how the war started would suggest otherwise. Look at the position the NSO put Hoo in. He had said "if you aid Sedrick it will be war" and NSO went ahead and did it, which they've admitted wasn't smart. Now Hoo is in the position where if he doesn't attack he is a coward and a liar (this goes back to the whole trusting a man's word I eluded to earlier). The NSO invited the attack on themselves. Even after discovering that NSO aided sedrick, Hoo went to your government and made sure that it was an act of your government, as opposed to an act of an individual member. What kind of scheming war monger would warn you in advanced not to do something, give you an opportunity to not do it, and then double-check and give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to do it? No type that I know of, because surely it wasn't his scheme to start a war to bring out the NPO, it was the aftermath of a man who kept his word.
[/quote]


[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1283223418' post='2436508']
That's not actually what was said but moving on, since that's been covered plenty already.

It is fun to watch people get all upset that not everyone is validating their victory (although interestingly it's mostly not the "victors" complaining).
[/quote]

Fixed

[the masheen]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1283223611' post='2436510']
You are so naive its really amazing. Take note of what you are saying and what in the future brings war to Pacifica and we'll see if you are right.
[/quote]

Did you even read my post where I clearly explain why I believe what I believe? Sorry for having an ounce of trust or respect for somebody.

Sorry, I don't mean to derail the topic, but this is the last time I will ever respond to posts made by you, Nando, so I'm asking you nicely to please never ever respond to anything I say again. I won't mention you in my posts ever again. I cannot and will not associate myself at all with your type, Fredo. You know what I'm talking about. Good luck out there and good day, sir.

[Bavaricar]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1283224308' post='2436524']
This is the worst revisionism I've ever seen, and it's only been a week since the war ended.

The victor of a war is [i]not[/i] determined by who deals out the most damage. FAN lost its war with the Initiative despite dishing out significantly more damage than it received. The victor of a war is determined by who dictates terms in the peace agreement, which in this case was RoK, GOD, and the rest. Ragnarok and the rest of their group could have continued the war indefinitely if they had wanted with each of their alliances only losing a small fraction of their strength, while NSO dropped much more rapidly.

I'm not sure if you understand this or not, but the very [i]reason[/i] that alliances are forced to concede defeat in the surrender document is to prevent exactly this sort of !@#$%^&* revisionism. People remember all too well the never-ending debates about whether or not the NPO truly lost Great War I, and to correct this a black-and-white statement that an alliance is surrendering is now the standard in peace agreements. The long and short of it is, if this was a tie then the leader of your alliance would not have uttered the words "The New Sith Order hereby announces its surrender". If you had fought this to a draw you would not be making concessions at all.
[/quote]

All of this is news to me. Is there a court somewhere I hadn't heard about who rules on these things and establishes these precedents you claim exist? Or is this just more of that might makes right jibber jabber?

Edited August 31, 2010 by Bavaricar

[heggo]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1283224308' post='2436524']
I'm not sure if you understand this or not, but the very [i]reason[/i] that alliances are forced to concede defeat in the surrender document is to prevent exactly this sort of !@#$%^&* revisionism. People remember all too well the never-ending debates about whether or not the NPO truly lost Great War I, and to correct this a black-and-white statement that an alliance is surrendering is now the standard in peace agreements.
[/quote]
Well I guess the take away here is that controlling other folks' rhetoric is a fool's errand. Freedom of speech reigns.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Moridin' timestamp='1283224308' post='2436524']
This is the worst revisionism I've ever seen, and it's only been a week since the war ended.
[/quote]
It's only been a week, be ready for more. Or you can see what I am saying for what it is. And if you're still confused then get me on IRC. What I am saying has worked on you and you're not even the intended target.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Rayvon' timestamp='1283221850' post='2436477']
Except you missed the memo where Hoo's word was law. Hoo said such a document of terms would not exist, therefore it is not a legal document.
[/quote]

So the war is technically still active? Unless of course,I misunderstood what you where trying to say.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Jgoods45

[Feuersturm]

As much as a really hate to say this, but I agree with [i]some[/i] of the posts above.

NSO lost. That's all there is to say about it. They were given peace, and the war ended. The peace was given by Rok and friends, and not the other way around. If NSO continued to actively attack RoK and co, then this would be a different story and we would not be having this discussion at the moment. Some of you in NSO need to realize that. Sure, those words in the surrender document are there to ease their conscience a little, and sure they are attempting (albeit horribly) to score some PR that they have lost. I see what happened, as do many others. Nobody can do anything about it now though, so we just gotta deal with it for the time being.

That being said, I still think the cause behind the war was utter crap, and was very flimsy. I will continue to support NSO on that fact. I look forward to continuing to help you guys get back on your feet

edit: You guys (NSO) also have balls for not calling the rest of us into this mess/trap. We won't be forgetting that anytime soon.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Feuersturm

[supercoolyellow]

So when is round two?

:ducks:

[the masheen]

[quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1283225528' post='2436546']
So the war is technically still active? Unless of course,I misunderstood what you where trying to say.
[/quote]

Don't stop them now. So far they've established that words (their word) mean nothing, signed documents by their government don't mean anything because they'll just refute it later, signed documents are null and void if the writer of the document promised them it wouldn't be written, and if you trust anyone you are a niave moron. They think they're extracting something from people, yet the people have extracted more from them. Let them keep digging their own grave.

[Starfox101]

Too bad.

[Sulmar]

I'm pretty sure we can all admit that NSO did, in fact, lose the in-game war. It's not like the outcome of that was ever in doubt, what with 5:1 odds and what not. I'm also sure that it is extraordinarily fun to see all these people get their panties in a twist because we start saying we won the war.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1283226189' post='2436560']
I'm pretty sure we can all admit that NSO did, in fact, lose the in-game war. It's not like the outcome of that was ever in doubt, what with 5:1 odds and what not. I'm also sure that it is extraordinarily fun to see all these people get their panties in a twist because we start saying we won the war.
[/quote]
It is fun and these people are predictable in their responses

It's fun controlling them

Edited August 31, 2010 by Fernando12