Dochartaigh Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298416808' post='2642060'] (OOC: That's not as bad as what happened to iPod a few years back . . . his little sister got on his account and decided to try making him money . . . by selling off infrastructure. He was down about 1,000 when he got back from the bathroom and realized what had happened) SOM, I think what Oz is trying to say is that you're a respectable and reasonable guy who we wish that we had been doing business with since the beginning of this nonsense. [/quote] i concur completely. i have always liked SOM. glad he is active again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote]I'm sorry for not getting the reference, but mind explaining what this means?[/quote] I think it's a pun along the lines of 'VietFAN' or 'AfGOONistan' – a reference to a probable guerilla resistance against CSN instead of surrendering to stupid terms. And he's saying that if you were in charge you'd be reasonable and not push things to that point. I agree with his assessment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) I'll be [i]that[/i] guy and say that the Dark Taliban thing went way over my head. I've been referring to ya'll as DT so much that I hadn't realized the obvious pun. Shame on me. Edited February 23, 2011 by SpacingOutMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmansfield68 Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1298424025' post='2642216'] I'll be [i]that[/i] guy and say that the Dark Taliban thing went way over my head. I've been referring to ya'll as DT so much that I hadn't realized the obvious pun. Shame on me. [/quote] To be honest, The Dark Taliban thing was lost on me as well. I refer to our alliance as The Templar. Usually, only foreigners use the DT tag, except when doing that strange salutey thingy (hailing.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='mmansfield68' timestamp='1298428722' post='2642336'] To be honest, The Dark Taliban thing was lost on me as well. I refer to our alliance as The Templar. Usually, only foreigners use the DT tag, except when doing that strange salutey thingy (hailing.) [/quote] Now I don't feel too-too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fant0m Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1298396887' post='2641787'] What, has MK been spying on us? I guarantee I've got more days of bills saved up than you do. [/quote] Certainly the most accurate way to measure warchest strength. Personally I have enough to buy 73,000 cruise missiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298355124' post='2641482'] It also worked for FAN. I'd suggest you read the history books before you doom yourself to the unlearned lessons of the past. [/quote] Seems you don't even learn from your own advice. While FAN technically 'won' (eventually!) They basically were ZI'd as an alliance for two freaking years. Their feat of fortitude is impressive, but comes at great cost. A pretty archetypical Pyrrhic victory. If you wanna call a two year ZI sentance on your alliance better than paying 40k tech, something 50 guys could move in less than one month, then by all means bluster up and keep fighting. Or you could dial the ego and rhetoric down a notch, admit that moving from talking about 40k tech to demanding white peace and apology was downright insutling and try to get some realistic terms. I know which one you'll choose right now, I'm just leaving this here as an 'I told you so' because honestly one of two things can happen here. Either you go back and swallow some terms, or you get leveled. More than you already have. Edit: I can add, honest! well, no not at 6 am. Sleeeeep. Edited February 23, 2011 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fant0m Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1298461768' post='2642775'] Seems you don't even learn from your own advice. While FAN technically 'won' (eventually!) They basically were ZI'd as an alliance for two freaking years. Their feat of fortitude is impressive, but comes at great cost. A pretty archetypical Pyrrhic victory. If you wanna call a two year ZI sentance on your alliance better than paying 40k tech, something 50 guys could move in less than one month, then by all means bluster up and keep fighting. Or you could dial the ego and rhetoric down a notch, admit that moving from talking about 40k tech to demanding white peace and apology was downright insutling and try to get some realistic terms. I know which one you'll choose right now, I'm just leaving this here as an 'I told you so' because honestly one of two things can happen here. Either you go back and swallow some terms, or you get leveled. More than you already have. Edit: I can add, honest! well, no not at 6 am. Sleeeeep. [/quote] Hey 40k tech reps for defending your friends is better than 2 years of ZI! What are you guys complaining about?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1298461768' post='2642775'] Seems you don't even learn from your own advice. While FAN technically 'won' (eventually!) They basically were ZI'd as an alliance for two freaking years. Their feat of fortitude is impressive, but comes at great cost. A pretty archetypical Pyrrhic victory. If you wanna call a two year ZI sentance on your alliance better than paying 40k tech, something 50 guys could move in less than one month, then by all means bluster up and keep fighting. Or you could dial the ego and rhetoric down a notch, admit that moving from talking about 40k tech to demanding white peace and apology was downright insutling and try to get some realistic terms. I know which one you'll choose right now, I'm just leaving this here as an 'I told you so' because honestly one of two things can happen here. Either you go back and swallow some terms, or you get leveled. More than you already have. Edit: I can add, honest! well, no not at 6 am. Sleeeeep. [/quote] lawlz. i would say it is not DT that needs to dial down on the ego-trip. CSN is only continuing to make things worse for themselves. if they actually attempt to perma-zi DT for 2 years because they thought we were not allowed to defend friends and allies, then i bet they will have something coming to them in the end if not sooner since most have learned from their mistakes with NPO. i doubt CSN would survive if they attempted to perma-zi us for so long. as for FAN, FAN is still around and what is FAN currently doing? oh that is right, FAN is currently helping to destroy NPO. so, pyrrhic victory... not so sure about that. as for realistic terms, white peace is completely realistic since this war was a peripheral war and peace could have been had some 18 days ago. ya'll keep acting like DT paying any sort of reps is actually reasonable and not a blatant attempt at extortion. it appears that CSN has even twisted the arm of Legacy into taking reps, since they were completely for white peace before. CSN should have learned from an alliance that is obviously their better, their former protectorate and current ally Legacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanru Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298469856' post='2642822']It appears that CSN has even twisted the arm of Legacy into taking reps, since they were completely for white peace before. CSN should have learned from an alliance that is obviously their better, their former protectorate and current ally Legacy.[/quote] Doch, I haven't been too involved in the peace but I believe the terms where Legacy would take reps was an alternative to paying the tech to CSN. CSN stated at the start they want DT to lose 40k tech and didn't care if they deleted it; DT mentioned they would be more understanding of reps had the alliance they declared on been asking for reps. On a personal level I remain in favor of white peace and still like you guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Wappas' timestamp='1298472139' post='2642836'] Doch, I haven't been too involved in the peace but I believe the terms where Legacy would take reps was an alternative to paying the tech to CSN. CSN stated at the start they want DT to lose 40k tech and didn't care if they deleted it; DT mentioned they would be more understanding of reps had the alliance they declared on been asking for reps. On a personal level I remain in favor of white peace and still like you guys. [/quote] Yah, I'll back you up on that to avoid confusion. Doch is wrong. DT's gov has stated if we were going to pay reps, we would rather pay reps to the alliance we went in on against. Being Legacy in this case. Which has yet to be offered, seeing as CSN is still asking for reps, just now legacy is an option of who DT can pay. Also, hello. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298469856' post='2642822'] lawlz. i would say it is not DT that needs to dial down on the ego-trip. CSN is only continuing to make things worse for themselves. if they actually attempt to perma-zi DT for 2 years because they thought we were not allowed to defend friends and allies, then i bet they will have something coming to them in the end if not sooner since most have learned from their mistakes with NPO. i doubt CSN would survive if they attempted to perma-zi us for so long. [/quote] Refusing to accept terms and surrender =/= a perma-zi sentence. You know exactly what has to occur to end the war, right or wrong in it's scope. FAN was never told "this will end the war", they were given vague threats, promises of discussions after everyone was out of PM, etc. This is not the same thing at all. You are holding yourself in the war, not CSN. You have the ability to end it today. You don't want to pay the price to do so, and it's a steep price, no doubt. However, the option exists for you. Comparing your situation to FANs makes a mockery of what they accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Wappas' timestamp='1298472139' post='2642836'] Doch, I haven't been too involved in the peace but I believe the terms where Legacy would take reps was an alternative to paying the tech to CSN. CSN stated at the start they want DT to lose 40k tech and didn't care if they deleted it; DT mentioned they would be more understanding of reps had the alliance they declared on been asking for reps. On a personal level I remain in favor of white peace and still like you guys. [/quote] Well that is basically what i meant. From what i could tell, it was only recently that Legacy has been involved with receiving reps. up until that point, ya'll wanted white peace. as for what Supa said, yes, i know DT gov stated that we would rather pay reps to Legacy than to CSN and i agree to a point. also, to my knowledge CSN never stated anything about DT simply losing 40k Tech, it was about CSN gaining 40k tech from DT. to me, it still appears that CSN has had a lot to do with Legacy having the option now to take reps, which before they did not want to do. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1298473523' post='2642848'] Refusing to accept terms and surrender =/= a perma-zi sentence. You know exactly what has to occur to end the war, right or wrong in it's scope. FAN was never told "this will end the war", they were given vague threats, promises of discussions after everyone was out of PM, etc. This is not the same thing at all. You are holding yourself in the war, not CSN. You have the ability to end it today. You don't want to pay the price to do so, and it's a steep price, no doubt. However, the option exists for you. Comparing your situation to FANs makes a mockery of what they accomplished. [/quote] actually that is false. FAN also knew exactly how to achieve peace which was have all their nations come out of PM and take 2 rounds of war. so, since FAN knew exactly what to do to get out of war, obviously they were never in a state of perma-ZI either. the option also existed for FAN, yet to most, FAN existed in a state of perma-ZI for 2 years. Terms were set in both wars and neither alliance receiving the terms could accept them. until CSN becomes reasonable and either offers white peace or a more acceptable set of terms to DT, this war is essentially the same as FAN's. actually several differences happen, to my knowledge CSN has no longer even promised to discuss anything accept our full approval of their ridiculous terms. also- you should note that it was Typoninja who began the comparison, not me. i simply went with it since he seems to think that we should pay CSN whatever extortionist reps they want. Edited February 23, 2011 by Dochartaigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untouchable Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Wappas' timestamp='1298472139' post='2642836'] Doch, I haven't been too involved in the peace but I believe the terms where Legacy would take reps was an alternative to paying the tech to CSN. CSN stated at the start they want DT to lose 40k tech and didn't care if they deleted it; DT mentioned they would be more understanding of reps had the alliance they declared on been asking for reps. On a personal level I remain in favor of white peace and still like you guys. [/quote]I to am in favor of white peace would be the honorable thing to do and end this madness. DT did what they had to defend and allied. White peace across the board this is my opinion as is that of a lot of others. So be nice and give them white peace they deserve it fighting hard against all odds DT 50 nations to about 200 or more DT has taken an enough punishment in my view. And probably would be unable to pay reps anyway so show some compassion and give them white peace. They have been great warriors good luck and I pray for why please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298474234' post='2642852'] actually that is false. FAN also knew exactly how to achieve peace which was have all their nations come out of PM and take 2 rounds of war. so, since FAN knew exactly what to do to get out of war, obviously they were never in a state of perma-ZI either. the option also existed for FAN, yet to most, FAN existed in a state of perma-ZI for 2 years. Terms were set in both wars and neither alliance receiving the terms could accept them. until CSN becomes reasonable and either offers white peace or a more acceptable set of terms to DT, this war is essentially the same as FAN's. actually several differences happen, to my knowledge CSN has no longer even promised to discuss anything accept our full approval of their ridiculous terms. also- you should note that it was Typoninja who began the comparison, not me. i simply went with it since he seems to think that we should pay CSN whatever extortionist reps they want. [/quote] Actually, I believe FAN was told they needed 2 weeks of war then there would be talks. Not flat out 2 weeks of war would end it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1298474772' post='2642858'] Actually, I believe FAN was told they needed 2 weeks of war then there would be talks. Not flat out 2 weeks of war would end it. [/quote] ahh you are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298474234' post='2642852'] actually that is false. FAN also knew exactly how to achieve peace which was have all their nations come out of PM and take 2 rounds of war. so, since FAN knew exactly what to do to get out of war, obviously they were never in a state of perma-ZI either.[/quote] Coming out of PM to take 2 rounds of war implies that FAN trusted NPO to keep its word, and FAN had every reason to believe that NPO would have additional "technicalities" to make 2 rounds into 4 rounds and 4 rounds into perma-ZI and eventual EZI. Would it have stopped short of that? Perhaps, but...FAN wasn't willing to bet their alliance on it. I can't say I blame them at all. They also stuck with it in PM far longer than I thought possible. [i] EDIT: the "talks" were the technicality at the end...thanks for the reminder, Janax[/i] All that said... CSN's terms aren't the worst ever. Are they just? No. Are they what a reasonable enemy would ask of a defeated foe? No. Should CSN offer different terms that are within the bounds of reason and appropriate? Absolutely. If not because DT did nothing to warrant harsh terms, but because of what happened with the FAN and NPO situation. FAN stood as a constant reminder of NPO's injustice and a rallying point to those who would see NPO fall. So it is with this case as well. CSN as much as DT needs to put this matter behind them. Edited February 23, 2011 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 You know, I can't really say I care too much about this issue, despite the fact that you all are arguing so fervently over it. One point though that seems to be cropping up more and more as these pages progress: Your not being held in eternal war. If you choose to make it such, that's your own doing and not by the hand of CSN. Are the terms harsh? Certainly. Are they eternal war or something to extreme as to constitute a material change in the way your alliance will exist in the future and therefore basically a constructive disbandment? Absolutely not. You can pay the sum, hefty though doable as it may be, and simply walk away. You are choosing not to, and that's fine, its your right, but please for the love of God don't start the FAN comparisons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1298474234' post='2642852'] Well that is basically what i meant. From what i could tell, it was only recently that Legacy has been involved with receiving reps. up until that point, ya'll wanted white peace. as for what Supa said, yes, i know DT gov stated that we would rather pay reps to Legacy than to CSN and i agree to a point. also, to my knowledge CSN never stated anything about DT simply losing 40k Tech, it was about CSN gaining 40k tech from DT. to me, it still appears that CSN has had a lot to do with Legacy having the option now to take reps, which before they did not want to do. [/quote] This is not the case. We have told CSN repeatedly that we do not want reps. We have told this to DT as well. DT came to us with the idea that they pay us instead of CSN. We wanted nothing to do with it, but in an effort to help end the war we agreed to accept reps and passed the idea along to CSN. What happens after that is out of my control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1298478846' post='2642889'] This is not the case. We have told CSN repeatedly that we do not want reps. We have told this to DT as well. DT came to us with the idea that they pay us instead of CSN. We wanted nothing to do with it, but in an effort to help end the war we agreed to accept reps and passed the idea along to CSN. What happens after that is out of my control [/quote] When I first heard it, I thought it was a pretty creative compromise to try to end the impasse. If anything I saw it as us giving concessions to DT (in some twisted, bizarro-world way), not as us letting CSN tell us what to do as some people seem to be implying. Edited February 23, 2011 by sammykhalifa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='fant0m' timestamp='1298458632' post='2642757'] Certainly the most accurate way to measure warchest strength. Personally I have enough to buy 73,000 cruise missiles. [/quote] So you have about [s]half[/s] my warchest with three times my infrastructure and I've been fighting a nuclear war for nearly a month. Man, MK is slipping. edit: forgot WRC multiplier, our warchests are probably similar Edited February 23, 2011 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='janax' timestamp='1298473523' post='2642848'] You are holding yourself in the war, not CSN. You have the ability to end it today. You don't want to pay the price to do so, and it's a steep price, no doubt. However, the option exists for you. Comparing your situation to FANs makes a mockery of what they accomplished. [/quote] [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1298477382' post='2642876']but please for the love of God don't start the FAN comparisons. [/quote] I agree with these guys right here. Sorry for bringing the FAN reference up. I wasn't saying that we are in the same boat that they were in, merely that there are some similarities with the conflicts. I have always had the utmost respect for FAN, with the exception of one or two of their posters who pissed me off a few years ago. It is certainly a mockery to the feat they achieved against the New Pacific Order at the peak of its strength to compare our less than a month at war with CsN to that in any more than saying "a guerrilla war can work, if its cost is preferable to surrender, as evidenced by VietFAN." We view its cost as preferable to the cost of surrender. Why? Mathematically, yes, it's cheaper just to toss 40,000 tech over to CSN. But the price is steeper than that. That price includes our integrity and our dignity. We at DT feel that there is no logical reason that we ought to be paying reps as a peripheral alliance in today's world. We know that we are being extorted and deliberately weakened. We will not take that lying down. Instead of giving CsN 40,000 tech, we're going to destroy most of theirs. We're going to destroy their infrastructure. We're going to put as many nations in bill lock as we can. If we are destroyed, we will leave CsN in complete ruins. There are things that are more important than our statistics. I'll explain with this timeless quote. "Our integrity sells for so little. And yet it's all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. And in that inch, we are free." We will not give them that inch. Our nations may be destroyed, but so will theirs. But we have the resolve to handle that. And we have the resolve to rebuild every last bit after the dust clears. (Of course, if anyone can posit a logical reason that DT ought to pay reps, I may change my view) [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1298478846' post='2642889'] This is not the case. We have told CSN repeatedly that we do not want reps. We have told this to DT as well. DT came to us with the idea that they pay us instead of CSN. We wanted nothing to do with it, but in an effort to help end the war we agreed to accept reps and passed the idea along to CSN. What happens after that is out of my control [/quote] So would you agree that this entire situation is born of either CsN's greed for tech, unfounded malice towards the Dark Templar, or both? Would you agree that the nations of your alliance are sacrificing their hard work for the tyranny of CsN and their cronies and controllers? It seems that you agree that white peace is and always has been and always will be the answer on that front. Can you tell me why CsN doesn't feel the same way? Sarm, I understand about being a loyal ally, I really do, but there is a limit to every virtue. At this juncture, your loyalty is helping an alliance grown diseased with their own power oppress the innocent purely out of a sadistic desire to strip us of our hard earned tech. Though you do not morally support what is being done, you continue to follow them down this path of wrongdoing. I don't blame you for what is happening, but by aiding CsN militarily, you have become as complicit as they are. To support an ally is an admirable thing. To support an ally that has become a tyrant is quite the contrary. EDIT: @sammykhalifa: You're right. DT members still want to negotiate. If no one is budging on the idea of reps, we would at least like to pay them not to the oppressor, but to the group who we actually attacked. @Lord Brendan: You actually calculated how much 73,000 cruise missiles cost? Edited February 23, 2011 by MaGneT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='MaGneT' timestamp='1298480698' post='2642914'] At this juncture, your loyalty is helping an alliance grown diseased with their own power oppress the innocent purely out of a sadistic desire to strip us of our hard earned tech. @Lord Brendan: You actually calculated how much 73,000 cruise missiles cost? [/quote] I think you're laying the hyperbole on a little thick there, man. Yes, although I just realized that because of his tech + WRC his cruise missiles probably cost a lot more than mine, so our warchests are probably similar after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 So after 70 pages of discussion something has changed? Or CSN still is requesting 40k tech as reparations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1298482479' post='2642929'] So after 70 pages of discussion something has changed? Or CSN still is requesting 40k tech as reparations? [/quote] Still requesting 40k Tech. Just that some of the tech goes to Legacy now. 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.