War Ends

[Guzalot]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282798008' post='2431558']
I'm glad we're still talking about how NSO "surrendered".
[/quote]
Like I said before: Unfinished business.

[Lysandros]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282667887' post='2429516']
You say you don't care and didn't want to fight us, but the actions of your leadership in this war certainly contradict that. Threatening to continue fighting after RoK left, and then getting RoK to indulge your need for pointless and false terms against their own word, that sort of thing. Granted, your alliance had no interest in actually communicating with us, that's obvious given the total !@#$%*fit Xiph threw anytime he was approached.[/quote]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1282668061' post='2429520']
You have a point, but the larger issue with his post is that TENE was never in any danger, at least not before RoK tossed them into a war, so I'm not even sure what he's trying to talk about.[/quote]


Trying to do some "devide and conquer"? Next time(Dully noted) try harder.

edit: also this

[quote]Like I said before: Unfinished business. [/quote]

You should really thank Hoo for ending the war so soon.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Lysandros

[Creeping Death]

NSO surrendered. What's so hard to accept that? Your emperor admitted defeat, should he have not your alliance would have surely took an extensive beating until you have all scattered into peace mode.

Some of us understand that it might not have been the best reason for a war, but a reason nonetheless. You threw rocks at our house while we were having a party our buddy Ragnarok warned you to stop.. so you threw another one. He called in the boys and we taught some kids a lesson. Looks to me like they won't interrupt our party again.

[Ragashingo]

Beyond all the bickering about lies and numerical equation and beer I feel it is my duty to complain about the formatting of the OP. I have a few issues with it in fact.

1. What's up with that odd new line after "was wrong"
2. The final term "+ a beer review" is inconsistent with the formatting of the others, it seems very tacked on
3. The signatures are very inconsistent. The first two alliances just have their people signing while the latter two have a line that tells which alliance they are with. Even that isn't consistent as one says "Signed on behalf of" while the other one simply says "For"

This is an important instrument of surrender regardless of how seriously (or not) one or more of the signing parties treat it. It needs to at least look the part. Those responsible for this travesty need to be put on every alliance's PZI list and their alliances deserve to burn.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Creeping Death' timestamp='1282804218' post='2431588']
NSO surrendered. What's so hard to accept that? Your emperor admitted defeat, should he have not your alliance would have surely took an extensive beating until you have all scattered into peace mode.

Some of us understand that it might not have been the best reason for a war, but a reason nonetheless. You threw rocks at our house while we were having a party our buddy Ragnarok warned you to stop.. so you threw another one. He called in the boys and we taught some kids a lesson. Looks to me like they won't interrupt our party again.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]No, not really, unless Hoo is a liar. RoK would have walked away regardless of whether or not NSO met terms. At least that was the nature of his and NSO's informal agreement for the week leading up to NSO's forfeiture.[/color]

[Creeping Death]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1282807128' post='2431608']
[color="#FF0000"]No, not really, unless Hoo is a liar. RoK would have walked away regardless of whether or not NSO met terms. At least that was the nature of his and NSO's informal agreement for the week leading up to NSO's forfeiture.[/color]
[/quote]

Either way, they still agreed to the terms. An emperor speaks for his alliance. He is the public figure that should, and does represent everything there is about the alliance... or should at least. With his signature on those terms it represents every single members acknowledgment of the terms and acceptance. Thus the point stands.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Creeping Death' timestamp='1282807617' post='2431613']
Either way, they still agreed to the terms. An emperor speaks for his alliance. He is the public figure that should, and does represent everything there is about the alliance... or should at least. With his signature on those terms it represents every single members acknowledgment of the terms and acceptance. Thus the point stands.
[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]That's a nice lovely theory right there, but that doesn't make it right. Each and every NSO member is entitled to be a sore loser if they want to, regardless of whether or not you or your alliance likes it.[/color]

[Copperhead]

[quote name='Creeping Death' timestamp='1282807617' post='2431613']
Either way, they still agreed to the terms. An emperor speaks for his alliance. He is the public figure that should, and does represent everything there is about the alliance... or should at least. With his signature on those terms it represents every single members acknowledgment of the terms and acceptance. Thus the point stands.
[/quote]

I disagree he doesn't represent the alliance. He makes based off [u]his own[/u] idea of what will be best for the alliance. Some members may disagree there are some of us who disagree with the decision like me. However, I'm not going to support or bash his decision. It is what it is. I must live with his choice. The war was pointless and maybe I would have put more urgency if it was a better reason to fight and if there were opponents who I actually gave a flip about. When, I first heard about this I said it's not worth my time. So, I turtled and fired CMs the whole time because honestly this war was not worth my time.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Copperhead

[Creeping Death]

[quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1282807930' post='2431618']
[color="#FF0000"]That's a nice lovely theory right there, but that doesn't make it right. Each and every NSO member is entitled to be a sore loser if they want to, regardless of whether or not you or your alliance likes it.[/color]
[/quote]

Indeed, I have no problem with them being sore losers. The fact is they admitted defeat.

[DictatatorDan]

[quote name='Creeping Death' timestamp='1282808057' post='2431620']
Indeed, I have no problem with them being sore losers. The fact is they admitted defeat.
[/quote]
[color="#FF0000"]I don't think anyone has denied that point. I think your confusing typical NSO moralist whining about the terms that they got when they were lead to beleive that they would not have any terms what so ever.[/color]

[Valerius]

Relatively quick fight. Just terms. The cancellation of GATO's Order treaties. I suppose I'm rather happy. Good luck to all parties.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Heyman' timestamp='1282796906' post='2431543']
Funnily enough, I ended up here after leaving TPF. Irony.
[/quote]
They're after you, Heyman. Watch out.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Creeping Death' timestamp='1282804218' post='2431588']
[b]Some of us understand that it might not have been the best reason for a war,[/b] but a reason nonetheless. You threw rocks at our house while we were having a party our buddy Ragnarok warned you to stop.. so you threw another one. He called in the boys and we taught some kids a lesson. Looks to me like they won't interrupt our party again.
[/quote]
I've never seen a more concrete reason for war short of "they just declared war on us," at which point debating whether to go to war is moot. Don't backpedal on this. Even NSO admits what Heft did was dumb, terms aside.

[Captain Flinders]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1282797111' post='2431546']
Yet you are Pacifica so people are going to not give you any credit for any accomplishments when many past alliances chose to disband when they faced a mere fraction of what you did during Karma and after.
[/quote]
Wow, really? The alliances that disbanded under NPO (and TPF's mind you) Hegemony were oftentimes not given terms at all. Alliances like NoV were specifically told that the only terms would be their disbandment, subjugation, and humiliation. At least the NPO and NSO got peace talks and terms. Not every alliance was so lucky.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1282804422' post='2431591']
Beyond all the bickering about lies and numerical equation and beer I feel it is my duty to complain about the formatting of the OP. I have a few issues with it in fact.

1. What's up with that odd new line after "was wrong"
2. The final term "+ a beer review" is inconsistent with the formatting of the others, it seems very tacked on
3. The signatures are very inconsistent. The first two alliances just have their people signing while the latter two have a line that tells which alliance they are with. Even that isn't consistent as one says "Signed on behalf of" while the other one simply says "For"

This is an important instrument of surrender regardless of how seriously (or not) one or more of the signing parties treat it. It needs to at least look the part. Those responsible for this travesty need to be put on every alliance's PZI list and their alliances deserve to burn.
[/quote]

/me points to the author of the OP

Start there.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1282823506' post='2431691']
I've never seen a more concrete reason for war short of "they just declared war on us," at which point debating whether to go to war is moot. Don't backpedal on this. Even NSO admits what Heft did was dumb, terms aside.
[/quote]

Sometimes it's not the quality of the CB, it's what you do with it. There were alternatives to what happened, but arguably they were not given a chance. Don't make the war into some sort of noble crusade.

[zenergy]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1282829208' post='2431720']
Sometimes it's not the quality of the CB, it's what you do with it. There were alternatives to what happened, but arguably they were not given a chance. Don't make the war into some sort of noble crusade.
[/quote]

Cut 'em some slack - a 10:1 curbstomp over a trivial diplomatic matter is what passes for a "noble crusade" on Planet Bob these days.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1282829208' post='2431720']
Sometimes it's not the quality of the CB, it's what you do with it. There were alternatives to what happened, but arguably they were not given a chance. Don't make the war into some sort of noble crusade.
[/quote]

He did not say or imply anything about a noble crusade, he simply said it was a concrete CB. You're response does not follow whatsoever.

[Gn0xious Jr]

[quote name='Pyroman' timestamp='1282628993' post='2428993']
I wonder what it would be like if for once the actual instigators apologized for starting a war. Wouldn't that be something?
[/quote]

that WOULD be something to see!

I'm glad that the war has stopped, but I'd have like to see a clean break. not force-fed one-sided accounts of what happened to provide false justification for the actions taken.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1282832901' post='2431733']
He did not say or imply anything about a noble crusade, he simply said it was a concrete CB. You're response does not follow whatsoever.
[/quote]

He implied that having a concrete CB made the war a righteous one. My point was that quality of the CB and whether or not the war was righteous are completely separate issues. At times nations/alliances/treaty partners/blocs declare war on the flimsiest of CBs but the war was unarguably a very good thing and advanced the cause liberty/justice/morality. Conversely, you can have a very solid CB and proceed to crush, in the most brutal way imaginable, someone who didn't particularly earn it.

This war had a good CB. Was it righteous? You can make a good argument that at some point NSO had something like this coming, but on the scale of evil, admitting someone who should have been told to have a seat until the diplomatic issues could be sorted out isn't exactly equivalent to attacking someone over their forced disbandment or EZI policy.

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

[quote name='zenergy' timestamp='1282830807' post='2431728']
Cut 'em some slack - a 10:1 curbstomp over a trivial diplomatic matter is what passes for a "noble crusade" on Planet Bob these days.
[/quote]

Is that the same kind of "noble" like canceling a treaty with an alliance while it is getting curbstomped inorder to save your own skin?

I am just wondering.

And just out of curiosity, NSO, with all this childish whining and complaining about your terms, aren't you being a little short sided here? What do you expect is going to happen if you find yourself in the same situation in the future, seeing your reactions to this war, what alliance is going to let you off with a slap on the wrist again?

Also I find it pretty interesting how vocal on the OWF Heft has been. I would think he should be too busy apologizing to the 150 or so members of NSO for putting them in a situation that causes most of their nations some pretty significant damage, rather than complain about terms...

If it was me and I put my alliance in the same position Heft did, I would think I would be too embarrassed to even show my face on the OWF for a while.

That's just me tho.

[der Rote Baron]

There's a lot of jawing here from both sides, which is totally cool, but I just want to say that the way NSO stood alone and took this on the chin while remaining on its feet is admirable. I didn't care much for NSO before this war but I'd certainly be proud of them if they were our ally.

o7 NSO


RoK is cool too o/

[SpoiL]

[quote name='Creeping Death' timestamp='1282804218' post='2431588']
Looks to me like they won't interrupt our party again.
[/quote]

I wouldn't count on it.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1282835436' post='2431749']
He implied that having a concrete CB made the war a righteous one. My point was that quality of the CB and whether or not the war was righteous are completely separate issues. At times nations/alliances/treaty partners/blocs declare war on the flimsiest of CBs but the war was unarguably a very good thing and advanced the cause liberty/justice/morality. Conversely, you can have a very solid CB and proceed to crush, in the most brutal way imaginable, someone who didn't particularly earn it.

This war had a good CB. Was it righteous? You can make a good argument that at some point NSO had something like this coming, but on the scale of evil, admitting someone who should have been told to have a seat until the diplomatic issues could be sorted out isn't exactly equivalent to attacking someone over their forced disbandment or EZI policy.
[/quote]

No, there was no such implication. Period. Only reason I'm pointing it out is because it happens so damn often around here and that type of thing endlessly perpetuates circular arguments and animosity, not trying to single you out. People just aggressively come out of left field with stuff, stretching as far as possible to to make connections so they can bring in their "argument" on a subject. Though, your point is a fair one and an interesting perspective, but I'm sure you know that most points that follow such a fabricated tie in are not nearly as coherent as your own.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Il Impero Romano

[Jrenster]

[quote name='Sweeeeet Ronny D' timestamp='1282838277' post='2431779']
Is that the same kind of "noble" like canceling a treaty with an alliance while it is getting curbstomped inorder to save your own skin?

I am just wondering.

And just out of curiosity, NSO, with all this childish whining and complaining about your terms, aren't you being a little short sided here? What do you expect is going to happen if you find yourself in the same situation in the future, seeing your reactions to this war, what alliance is going to let you off with a slap on the wrist again?

Also I find it pretty interesting how vocal on the OWF Heft has been. I would think he should be too busy apologizing to the 150 or so members of NSO for putting them in a situation that causes most of their nations some pretty significant damage, rather than complain about terms...

If it was me and I put my alliance in the same position Heft did, I would think I would be too embarrassed to even show my face on the OWF for a while.

That's just me tho.
[/quote]

I think most of us are pointing out that the statements we were forced to put up are absolute lies and that none of us actually believe in them. People like me don't really care about the surrendering or the beer terms.

Also, you will find that not many of us have humility. Whereas alliances such as yours treat humility as a virtue, we see it as a strategy used by the weak to avoid being trampled upon by the strong.

We will admit to mistakes when we make them, but we're not going to sit around prostrating before the OWF begging for forgiveness.