War Ends

[Bill Wallace]

Too bad my idea for reps was ignored. Something to do do with Moldavi actually maintaining his nation for a period of six months. Now that would have been evil. Instead we only get a beer review. Oh well.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1282682832' post='2429813']
At least to me (and I clearly admit this is my opinion) it seems you'd have to be really weak to let your allies force you to break your own word in your own war to get them to follow your lead. I admit, that's not something I would expect from friends and allies at all.
[/quote]

Some friends are self-serving and don't respect the wishes of their allies.

[shilo]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282683085' post='2429820']
That is indeed the reason they were brought in, yes. I didn't make them enter though, they agreed to do so. The same goes for exiting a war. Should an alliance decide that they require more to end a war, then that is their right to do so. I am not sure why you see it as some sort of weakness. I do not pretend to control other alliances.

Lastly, I did not break my word. Once again, we said we'd leave after two rounds and that Ragnarok wanted nothing. This happened.
[/quote]
Well, at least in my experience, and how I would handle this, the aggrieved party has the lead in the endeavor, since afterall it is your business. Your allies are there to support you, from A to Z, not their own agendas. When you as the aggrieved party are happy, with the terms you worked out, your allies should leave the battlefield not with what they wanted to get out of it, but what you wanted.
You guys seem to have a different group dynamic, it's just something rather unusual for me to see.

That said, since your name is on the OP of this thread, you did. I can see why that occurred, however it doesn't change the fact that you did not, as you suggested, end this war by letting everyone "walk away". The odd thing is though, that mostly your allies managed to damage your name through their behavior, the major achievement of this war. This is a very bizarre war indeed.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282682460' post='2429799']
And I repeatedly stated that [b]Ragnarok[/b] wanted no terms and would just walk away, both of which actually happened. I even repeatedly stated that I only speak for my alliance.

Note the bolded portion. That does not say GOD, VE, R&R, or anyone else.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]None of the things said happened, actually did. Let me outline it for you.

RoK is a signing party to this peace agreement, and is therefore an accepting party to NSO's (light) terms, even if you didn't want them.

It was strongly implied, if not overtly stated, that war would continue among all parties [b]including RoK[/b] if the terms of surrender were not accepted by NSO.

Seeing as RoK was the initial attacker after being provoked by NSO, and that RoK did indeed call in it's allies for assistance, common sense would dictate, that you are indeed the leader of not only RoK, but to one extent or another, at the healm of your coalition.

Of course, as most people know, your allies involvement in this affair has less to do with supporting it's allies in RoK, and more to do with settling old grudges with NSO. This has showed itself out in the way your freinds chose to carry themselves through the surrender agreement.


Now this is not to say that you are neccesarily an evil person and whatnot, because I really have no place for moralistic altruism, rather it just proves that you are just another person who is not neccesarily anymore special than any other schmuck out there.[/color]

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282683381' post='2429826']
We don't look at a war as "our show", once other alliances post that DoW it is a group effort. We stated our intentions, made sure you were aware that our allies may not be okay with zero terms or an end at two weeks, yet were able to end it in two weeks anyway ... allies included. I am not seeing the injustice, dishonesty, or heinous act here.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Oh, I've got no issues with the terms. I've already said they're quite light. I'm merely saying that you might want to keep your allies in line next time you bring them to the party. They reflect on you in more ways than you know.[/color]

[Tautology]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1282684276' post='2429850']
... I'm merely saying that you might want to keep your allies in line next time you bring them to the party. ...[/quote]
What a horrible controlling approach. We don't try to keep our allies "in line". They're our friends.

[KingEd]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1282684276' post='2429850']
[color="#0000FF"]Oh, I've got no issues with the terms. I've already said they're quite light. I'm merely saying that [b]you might want to keep your allies in line next time you bring them to the party. They reflect on you in more ways than you know.[/b][/color]
[/quote]

Quite Light? Your funny. However, maybe IRON and NPO should keep the NSO in line in regards to their diplomatic departments. Since after all, your diplomatic blunder reflected so [i]badly[/i] upon them didn't it ?

Please, spare me.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1282684577' post='2429852']
What a horrible controlling approach. We don't try to keep our allies "in line". They're our friends.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I've no problem with backing up your friends, but had I been in charge of RoK I'd have made sure the alliances I brought in for support were there for just that, support, and not to act upon their own petty vendettas. I suppose it is just a minor philosophical difference between the two of us.[/color]

[the masheen]

What is all this bickering? Is this some sort of shot at a "moral" PR victory or something? NSO gets off with no reps (signed something saying you were wrong but just refuted it in this thread anyways) and a beer review (which was terribly written). The fact of the matter is Hoo was a man of his word and conducted himself correctly this entire war from start to finish. He said if you aid Sedrick he will attack, he did. He said that he wouldn't give you any reps, he did. He said it would last two rounds, it did.

I was originally from ADI, I hated Hoo and RoK in general. Now, not so much. He seems to be a man of his word. He tells you where he stands, I like that. The more NSO whines and complains, the more frail and unforgiving you seem. Just drop it...

[Tautology]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1282684966' post='2429863']
[color="#0000FF"]... had I been in charge of RoK I'd have made sure the alliances I brought in for support were there for just that, ...[/quote]
There you go again. More controlling behavior.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1282684103' post='2429845']
[color="#FF0000"]None of the things said happened, actually did. Let me outline it for you.

RoK is a signing party to this peace agreement, and is therefore an accepting party to NSO's (light) terms, even if you didn't want them.

It was strongly implied, if not overtly stated, that war would continue among all parties [b]including RoK[/b] if the terms of surrender were not accepted by NSO.

Seeing as RoK was the initial attacker after being provoked by NSO, and that RoK did indeed call in it's allies for assistance, common sense would dictate, that you are indeed the leader of not only RoK, but to one extent or another, at the healm of your coalition.

Of course, as most people know, your allies involvement in this affair has less to do with supporting it's allies in RoK, and more to do with settling old grudges with NSO. This has showed itself out in the way your freinds chose to carry themselves through the surrender agreement.


Now this is not to say that you are neccesarily an evil person and whatnot, because I really have no place for moralistic altruism, rather it just proves that you are just another person who is not neccesarily anymore special than any other schmuck out there.[/color]
[/quote]

And now I will outline it for you since, you know, I was actually there and knew what we were doing and thinking throughout all of this.

Ragnarok signed this to reflect that we are no longer at war. We could have Lint add an asterisk stating that we did not request reps or anything else if you like, but that seems sort of silly.

The NSO were made aware that we do not speak for our allies, but that [b]we[/b] would not be seeking anything from the NSO and that we fully intended to end this after two rounds ... which we did.

Lastly, I know you feel that it is some sort of negative character trait that I don't boss my allies around or tell them what to do, and that is fine. I'm sure you won't be offended when I tell you that I don't really care about your personal opinion. Yes, we did start the conflict, and yes our allies did enter to assist us in covering targets before they went into peace mode. But no, we will not tell our allies and friends what [b]they[/b] want from this war once it has started nor will we tell them that they [b]must[/b] offer peace at a specified time just because we have decided to do so. We can let them know of our intentions and even that we disagree with not granting them peace in two rounds with no statement on the OWF. However, we do not tell our friends and allies when they should start or stop a war ... regardless of who started it to begin with.

[shilo]

[quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1282684577' post='2429852']
What a horrible controlling approach. We don't try to keep our allies "in line". They're our friends.
[/quote]
That's definitely your philosophy, one I can't argue about. However, even in your less tightly handled organization of wars, it should end there where one leader (much less so the one whose alliance began the war in the first place) is forced to break his word for the war to end at least. I understand that you want more input from your allies, but where your allies have more to say than you in your own war usually is the point where a bit more "control" is the way to go.

[Ragashingo]

[quote]Van Hoo:
We don't look at a war as "our show", once other alliances post that DoW it is a group effort. We stated our intentions, made sure you were aware that our allies may not be okay with zero terms or an end at two weeks, yet were able to end it in two weeks anyway ... allies included. I am not seeing the injustice, dishonesty, or heinous act here.[/quote]

I think this is a fairly lousy policy personally. For a big war like BiPolar or Karma this happens all on it's own. Those "Great War" class wars truly do take on a life of their own. But that wasn't the case here. Viewed in the best light (for you) this was you defending your protectorate. This was not a global war. It did not have the scale to take on a life of it's own. Essentially this was Rok's war and y'all for better or worse bear a large amount of the responsibility if you let your allies run amuck. Fortunately they didn't this time, at least not really, but the policy of excusing what could have been excessive demands is a poor one.

This is not to say you shouldn't value your ally's input, but letting them use your minor conflict to further their own aggression is certainly not honorable.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1282685252' post='2429870']
That's definitely your philosophy, one I can't argue about. However, even in your less tightly handled organization of wars, it should end there where one leader (much less so the one whose alliance began the war in the first place) is forced to break his word for the war to end at least. I understand that you want more input from your allies, but where your allies have more to say than you in your own war usually is the point where a bit more "control" is the way to go.
[/quote]

For the last time, we did not break our word. We did not request anything from the NSO, and the logs they have provided even have me stating that I do not speak for our allies and that they might disagree. We also ended the war in two rounds. Both of these happened and that is a fact.

Having an opinion is one thing, being flat out inaccurate is another.

[Heft]

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1282685161' post='2429866']
What is all this bickering? Is this some sort of shot at a "moral" PR victory or something? NSO gets off with no reps (signed something saying you were wrong but just refuted it in this thread anyways) and a beer review (which was terribly written). The fact of the matter is Hoo was a man of his word and conducted himself correctly this entire war from start to finish. He said if you aid Sedrick he will attack, he did. He said that he wouldn't give you any reps, he did. He said it would last two rounds, it did.

I was originally from ADI, I hated Hoo and RoK in general. Now, not so much. He seems to be a man of his word. He tells you where he stands, I like that. The more NSO whines and complains, the more frail and unforgiving you seem. Just drop it...
[/quote]
The beer review was terrifically written, what are you talking about?

Oh and yes there were no reps or materially harsh terms, we're aware of that. Just because people keep mentioning that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the actual conversation.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1282685427' post='2429873']

This is not to say you shouldn't value your ally's input, but letting them use your minor conflict to further their own aggression is certainly not honorable.
[/quote]

Except you have no idea what would have happened should the war have continued with no statement signed last night ...

[TheSeeker07]

Good turtle-ing. That is all.

Edited August 24, 2010 by TheSeeker07

[shilo]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282685463' post='2429874']
For the last time, we did not break our word. We did not request anything from the NSO, and the logs they have provided even have me stating that I do not speak for our allies and that they might disagree. We also ended the war in two rounds. Both of these happened and that is a fact.

Having an opinion is one thing, being flat out inaccurate is another.
[/quote]
Seriously, you can't sign a surrender term and then say you didn't ask anything from NSO.
Ask for the OP to be edited if RoK did not sign this, but until you do, your name up on the OP says that you broke your word by demanding a in your eyes worthless admission of guilt.

I very well accept what you said earlier, what your personal opinion is, but the last fact on the matter is you signing a document demanding (light, no argument here) terms from NSO. Can't see inaccuracy here at all I fear.

[the masheen]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282685520' post='2429875']
The beer review was terrifically written, what are you talking about?

Oh and yes there were no reps or materially harsh terms, we're aware of that. Just because people keep mentioning that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the actual conversation.
[/quote]

I know the conversation. NSO and friends are trying to dissect every single aspect of the war and Hoo's logs trying to find fault and bad PR to throw at RoK. RoK and Hoo are defending themselves and all RoK's allies are rubbinng NSO's nose in the fact that they surrendered. Am I missing anything?

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1282685740' post='2429878']
Seriously, you can't sign a surrender term and then say you didn't ask anything from NSO.
Ask for the OP to be edited if RoK did not sign this, but until you do, your name up on the OP says that you broke your word by demanding a in your eyes worthless admission of guilt.

I very well accept what you said earlier, what your personal opinion is, but the last fact on the matter is you signing a document demanding (light, no argument here) terms from NSO. Can't see inaccuracy here at all I fear.
[/quote]

Again, we signed it to reflect that we were no longer at war with the NSO. If you want to pretend that there is an asterisk next to our names, feel free.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Van Hoo III

[Heft]

[quote name='the masheen' timestamp='1282685816' post='2429880']
I know the conversation. NSO and friends are trying to dissect every single aspect of the war and Hoo's logs trying to find fault and bad PR to throw at RoK. RoK and Hoo are defending themselves and all RoK's allies are rubbinng NSO's nose in the fact that they surrendered. Am I missing anything?
[/quote]
So you didn't read the thread either. Cool.

Anyway, beer review was great.

[Rayvon]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282685817' post='2429881']
Again, we signed it to reflect that we were no longer at war with the NSO. If you want to pretend that there is an asterisk next to our names, feel free.
[/quote]


You signed your name without accountability is what it comes down to. You brought them in. It's on you.

We took accountability for our (Hefts) actions, our allies respected our wishes and stood aside.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Rayvon

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1282685427' post='2429873']
I think this is a fairly lousy policy personally. For a big war like BiPolar or Karma this happens all on it's own. Those "Great War" class wars truly do take on a life of their own. But that wasn't the case here. Viewed in the best light (for you) this was you defending your protectorate. This was not a global war. It did not have the scale to take on a life of it's own. Essentially this was Rok's war and y'all for better or worse bear a large amount of the responsibility if you let your allies run amuck. Fortunately they didn't this time, at least not really, but the policy of excusing what could have been excessive demands is a poor one.

This is not to say you shouldn't value your ally's input, but letting them use your minor conflict to further their own aggression is certainly not honorable.
[/quote]

This post sums up my feelings well. Congrats to all parties on settling this conflict.

[shilo]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1282685817' post='2429881']
Again, we signed it to reflect that we were no longer at war with the NSO. If you want to pretend that there is an asterisk next to our names, feel free.
[/quote]
Well, it must be different philosophies once more, but at least to me a document means mostly what it says, not what invisible disclaimers make it up to be. If you wanted to make clear that you and your allies differ, you shouldn't ask me to pretend that there is something in the OP that isn't there, you should either have gotten it up there, or get it up there now the latest.

[ktarthan]

[quote name='shilo' timestamp='1282685740' post='2429878']
Seriously, you can't sign a surrender term and then say you didn't ask anything from NSO.
Ask for the OP to be edited if RoK did not sign this, but until you do, your name up on the OP says that you broke your word by demanding a in your eyes worthless admission of guilt.

I very well accept what you said earlier, what your personal opinion is, but the last fact on the matter is you signing a document demanding (light, no argument here) terms from NSO. Can't see inaccuracy here at all I fear.
[/quote]
Okay, so what I think you're trying to get at, is that you think if these terms were not "met", then RoK would not have given NSO peace after two weeks. This is such a convenient argument as it's impossible to definitively prove either way, but that doesn't mean it's a good argument.

However, if that is [i]not[/i] what you're trying to argue, then I honestly can't make a single bit of sense out of what you are saying.

Edited August 24, 2010 by ktarthan