A Dark Templar Announcement

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297859591' post='2635566']
The timing of their entry is what leads us to this point of them getting terms. CSN offered LoSS peace. Even if LoSS wasn't going to accept it, the peace offer was there and peace talks had obviously happened. In my eyes, there are a few options as to DT's thought process
1. Hitting a soft target likely to get a bump and run (hit, few days later get white peace) as many here have mentioned
2. Hitting legacy, a somewhat weaker link on the side, in hopes of knocking them out quick (i say weaker link in terms of treaties on reserve)
3. Hitting legacy because LoSS failed to inform them of the peace talks that happened at DT got screwed over by their ally

on all 3, DT deserves reps. ODP, noDP, MADP, you do this kind of retarded !@#$ and [b]lose[/b], you deserve to get crippling reps
[/quote]

No, they don't...and this EXACT mentality is what is hurting Planet Bob the most. Not unprovoked attacks, not flimsy CBs. Not even the GRL. Don't even get me started on "well it could be worse, we could be trying to disband them." You're twit, pretending to present rationale for the unjustifiable.

Go away. With every post in this thread GOD makes CSN look even worse.

Edited February 16, 2011 by ChairmanHal

[xoindotnler]

[quote name='Mayzie' timestamp='1297861446' post='2635577']
Aren't you in GOD, not CSN?
[/quote]
I think we got the point of CSN just being a puppet of GOD already.

[Co God Ben]

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297859591' post='2635566']
The timing of their entry is what leads us to this point of them getting terms. CSN offered LoSS peace. Even if LoSS wasn't going to accept it, the peace offer was there and peace talks had obviously happened. In my eyes, there are a few options as to DT's thought process
1. Hitting a soft target likely to get a bump and run (hit, few days later get white peace) as many here have mentioned
2. Hitting legacy, a somewhat weaker link on the side, in hopes of knocking them out quick (i say weaker link in terms of treaties on reserve)
3. Hitting legacy because LoSS failed to inform them of the peace talks that happened at DT got screwed over by their ally

on all 3, DT deserves reps. ODP, noDP, MADP, you do this kind of retarded !@#$ and [b]lose[/b], you deserve to get crippling reps
[/quote]
They offered us terms we weren't going to and didn't accept. Peace negotiations does not and has no reason to end any escalation.

1. Legacy was not the soft target. Legacy was the hardest alliance that hit LOSS.
2. Maybe they did want Legacy to surrender. It would make sense, but precedent of this war says to defend someone you don't need a treaty (CSN, Sparta, etc.). I'm sure they were perfectly aware that they'd be countered, and they were countered immediately.
3. This is false, and has been well disproved. Hold on to it if you want, but you'll just sound like a moron.

[CptGodzilla]

[quote name='The Great One' timestamp='1297860515' post='2635570']
When at war if you offer terms, no matter if there is a chance of them being accepted the only thing that matters is you have offered terms. Now the defending alliance cannot call in allies without being opportunisitc bandwagoners. So from now on the moment war is declared everyone should offer peace terms and the other side cannot bring in allies anymore!

Come up with something new. At the moment what you are arguing is so idiotic I don't understand how even you guys can try to argue it.
[/quote]

I am not saying anything of the sort. I am pointing out that when you are on the losing side of a war, all your actions are scrutinized by the alliances you are facing, and they will reply accordingly. CSN views DT's actions as either cowardly or opportunistic, thus they are replying to their views accordingly. There is no grand scheme or hidden message in my posts.

Edited February 16, 2011 by CptGodzilla

[Poyplemonkeys]

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297862078' post='2635584']
I am not saying anything of the sort. I am pointing out that when you are on the losing side of a war, all your actions are scrutinized by the alliances you are facing, and they will reply accordingly. CSN views DT's actions as either cowardly or opportunistic, thus they are replying to their views accordingly. There is no grand scheme or hidden message in my posts.
[/quote]

Well that's great, we all realised by now that CSN holds some pretty stupid, and some other objectively false, views regarding DT's actions. What exactly are you adding to this discussion?

[CptGodzilla]

[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' timestamp='1297862502' post='2635586']
Well that's great, we all realised by now that CSN holds some pretty stupid, and some other objectively false, views regarding DT's actions. [b]What exactly are you adding to this discussion[/b]?
[/quote]

What does anyone add to a discussion on the OWF? Everyone comes here with their minds set and unwavering views. There is no way to change that. I am just one of the many peons who wants to have his voice heard and attempt a healthy debate to spend the time between nukings.

DT + allies are always going to think that the reps are unjustified
CSN + allies are always going to think that the reps are justified
the peanut gallery plays absolutely no part in surrender discussion

[shahenshah]

My mind has been changed about CSN and DT. It doesnt matter, anyway have fun.

Edited February 16, 2011 by shahenshah

[Poyplemonkeys]

Well sure but when you throw out things like this

[quote]1. Hitting a soft target likely to get a bump and run (hit, few days later get white peace) as many here have mentioned
2. Hitting legacy, a somewhat weaker link on the side, in hopes of knocking them out quick (i say weaker link in terms of treaties on reserve)
3. Hitting legacy because LoSS failed to inform them of the peace talks that happened at DT got screwed over by their ally[/quote]

to try and justify whatever CSN's point of view happens to be at this moment in time then you contribute far less than most. I mean your second point is just standard warfare for God's sake and if you or CSN have a problem with that I'd suggest the stick up your arse has a stick up it's arse. The other two points you made have been thoroughly debunked throughout the thread, to a point where I really don't even know why people are still bringing them up.

Legacy wasn't a soft target, it was the target causing LoSS the most damage. That is why LoSS requested DT active their treaty to hit Legacy and not CSN. Legacy hurts more, and judging by some of the reports of CSN warchests that have floated about I'm really not surprised. As for your peace argument, Coloradia has already pointed out how ludicrous it is to suggest that because LoSS had been offered peace and informed CSN they had no intentions of peacing out yet, that they are somehow wrong for escalating the war. DT was well informed that LoSS had no intentions of accepting peace whilst TIO remained in the war.

[zzzptm]

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297859591' post='2635566']
The timing of their entry is what leads us to this point of them getting terms. CSN offered LoSS peace. Even if LoSS wasn't going to accept it, the peace offer was there and peace talks had obviously happened. In my eyes, there are a few options as to DT's thought process
1. Hitting a soft target likely to get a bump and run (hit, few days later get white peace) as many here have mentioned
2. Hitting legacy, a somewhat weaker link on the side, in hopes of knocking them out quick (i say weaker link in terms of treaties on reserve)
3. Hitting legacy because LoSS failed to inform them of the peace talks that happened at DT got screwed over by their ally

on all 3, DT deserves reps. ODP, noDP, MADP, you do this kind of retarded !@#$ and [b]lose[/b], you deserve to get crippling reps
[/quote]
Tyrant's logic, and it carries no water for the holes in it are significant and numerous. Please try to invent a new, more reasonable justification that doesn't smack of revisionist obscurantism.

It's clear that GOOD (thank you ChairmanHal for that one) and CSN got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and that they're trying to make up whatever story they can to avoid a trip out to the woodshed. Tsk, tsk!

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297853085' post='2635533']
It didn't really make sense for DT to declare in support of LoSS this late in the war, however.
[/quote]

Other than the fact that they were [u]asked[/u], you are absolutely correct.

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1297858307' post='2635561']
...and then you surrendered to them..
Not really the greatest example to use.
[/quote]

Ignoring for a moment that wF said repeatedly that it wasn't a surrender -- and please, that was the most poorly worded, amateurish OP I've seen in some time -- you also make a very good point.

However, I've accepted a surrender from [u]your[/u] alliance before, and it continues to give me warm, fuzzy feelings to this day. Every time your eight-year-old, tantrum-throwing, fantasy-spewing leader goes on a tirade about it I lean back, smile, and think of what was. You see, to this day, Xiphosis rages about the evils perpetrated upon his alliance by NoV in the Unjust War. In most of the conversations I've had with him over the past four years, he has brought it up in all but one or two.

Run home, child. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

[quote name='CptGodzilla' timestamp='1297862717' post='2635588']
What does anyone add to a discussion on the OWF? Everyone comes here with their minds set and unwavering views. There is no way to change that. I am just one of the many peons who wants to have his voice heard and attempt a healthy debate to spend the time between nukings.

DT + allies are always going to think that the reps are unjustified
CSN + allies are always going to think that the reps are justified
the peanut gallery plays absolutely no part in surrender discussion
[/quote]

You left out the part where you -- oh, I'm sorry, CSN (how could I have confused the two?) -- walk away looking like fools.

You think people on your side support you on this? My guess is that you're getting a lot of "Well, it's your call" kinds of support. Meanwhile, those same allies are telling others (like me, for example) that you're acting like a bunch of children.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Ashoka the Great

[Bordiga]

My alliance attacked the United Blue Directorate in defense of our allies, NEAT, on an Optional Defense Clause. We left the conflict about 2 days later with white peace.

The Sandwich Confederation are clearly monsters who need to be put down for this injustice.

[fant0m]

DT are cowards for hitting a direct MD ally of a Superfriend? Not to mention LoSS requested DT's help with Legacy because they were the most capable alliance at war with them. I've always thought CSN was one of the classiest alliances in CN but this whole sordid affair is becoming ridiculous.

[Monster]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' timestamp='1297863391' post='2635597']
Other than the fact that they were [u]asked[/u], you are absolutely correct.
[/quote]

They had the option not to do it and I hope you're agreeing that it wasn't an awesome strategic move.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='zzzptm' timestamp='1297863240' post='2635595']
Tyrant's logic, and it carries no water for the holes in it are significant and numerous. Please try to invent a new, more reasonable justification that doesn't smack of revisionist obscurantism.

It's clear that GOOD (thank you ChairmanHal for that one) and CSN got caught with their hands in the cookie jar and that they're trying to make up whatever story they can to avoid a trip out to the woodshed. Tsk, tsk!
[/quote]

I must learn to type less angry.

[i]OOC: Stupid 'O' key spoils barrel[/i]

But indeed, well stated on your part.

[hizzy]

I'd like to make a deal with CSN, if they don't mind;

drop the tech terms, and I promise not to nuke more tech out of your alliance than you're going to be getting out of DT.

[Supa_Troop3r]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297855921' post='2635543']
LoSS had a standing offer of white peace and given that their reason for being involved(TIO) was peacing, it didn't make sense for them to remain in the war and DT could have stayed uninvolved. I can see why CSN would be upset over that. Anyway, the reps could have been bargained down and there was an attempt to do so, but they decided to hardball when CSN was willing to make concessions based on the bad PR CSN is getting and that's not going to do much good for the reasons I've stated.
[/quote]
Why do you people keep saying LoSS had a standing offer of white peace. They declinded white peace until all of their allies left their fronts.Goose has even stated on these forums that LoSS didn't have a white peace offer. Do we have to post logs to prove everything?

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297865702' post='2635620']
They had the option not to do it and I hope you're agreeing that it wasn't an awesome strategic move.
[/quote]

actually there is only 1 move in this bit of the war that was not strategic. and i will tell you here and now that DT nor LoSS were the ones to make said move.

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Supa_Troop3r' timestamp='1297869071' post='2635657']
Why do you people keep saying LoSS had a standing offer of white peace. They declinded white peace until all of their allies left their fronts.Goose has even stated on these forums that LoSS didn't have a white peace offer. Do we have to post logs to prove everything?
[/quote]
I'm confused. If there was no offer of white peace what did they decline, exactly?

[Joseph Black]

After reading enough to feel that I understand the current situation, here are my two cents on the issue. DT was being opportunistic when deciding to attack Legacy, for better or worse that was a strategic move. DT did use an optional defense clause to enter into the conflict, for better or worse that is kind of the point of the treaty, they have the option (and to be honest ODP's shouldn't be looked at so negatively, if more alliances signed these than MDP's we would not see so many people ignoring obligations to allies). CSN is being completely unreasonable, alright I'll give you that Legacy is a protectorate of theirs, and I'll give you that they want to defend their protectorates interest, however if the tech was destine for Legacy this would be a completely different issue, the fact as I understand it is, CSN wants 40K tech for themselves. CSN doesn't really have any basis for imposing reps other than simply because they want to, which is their right. This issue boils down to a battle of wills, DT's against CSN's. Its just to bad that DT's allies not involved in this conflict are not willing to defend DT.

[Schad]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1297874737' post='2635718']
CSN is being completely unreasonable, alright I'll give you that Legacy is a protectorate of theirs, and I'll give you that they want to defend their protectorates interest, however if the tech was destine for Legacy this would be a completely different issue, the fact as I understand it is, CSN wants 40K tech for themselves.
[/quote]

As you're not the first to raise it: Legacy long since graduated from protectorate status, as they grew at such an exponential rate that they didn't need protecting for very long...roughly a month, I believe. In fact, they're not far from the same size by score as CSN at this juncture.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Muddog' timestamp='1297874737' post='2635718']
After reading enough to feel that I understand the current situation, here are my two cents on the issue. DT was being opportunistic when deciding to attack Legacy, for better or worse that was a strategic move. DT did use an optional defense clause to enter into the conflict, for better or worse that is kind of the point of the treaty, they have the option (and to be honest ODP's shouldn't be looked at so negatively, if more alliances signed these than MDP's we would not see so many people ignoring obligations to allies). CSN is being completely unreasonable, alright I'll give you that Legacy is a protectorate of theirs, and I'll give you that they want to defend their protectorates interest, however if the tech was destine for Legacy this would be a completely different issue, the fact as I understand it is, CSN wants 40K tech for themselves. CSN doesn't really have any basis for imposing reps other than simply because they want to, which is their right. This issue boils down to a battle of wills, DT's against CSN's. Its just to bad that DT's allies not involved in this conflict are not willing to defend DT.
[/quote]

could you please provide justification that DT was being opportunistic when we hit Legacy? you do realize DT only hit Legacy because they were the alliance hurting LoSS the most and that LoSS asked us to hit them? if LoSS had asked us to hit CSN, DT would have DoWed CSN. so please, i am failing to understand this whole "opportunistic" idea.

also Legacy was a former protectorate and now MDoAP partner of CSN.

[Tromp]

It is opportunistic because apparently LoSS (and TIO) had a standing white peace offer from their opponents.
Bringing in DT on Legacy, the least connected alliance, was thus not necessary, yet LoSS opted to escalate the war they were in.

To be honest I think it was LoSS who were being unreasonable at first, but it seems DT will be held accountable for choosing to go along with it.

[CubaQuerida]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1297876725' post='2635748']
It is opportunistic because apparently LoSS (and TIO) had a standing white peace offer from their opponents.
Bringing in DT on Legacy, the least connected alliance, was thus not necessary, yet LoSS opted to escalate the war they were in.

To be honest I think it was LoSS who were being unreasonable at first, but it seems DT will be held accountable for choosing to go along with it.
[/quote]

This is also a falsehood being continuously reposted, and it needs correction.

CSN only offered a "partial peace" to the Loss/TIO front, as evidenced by the logs posted. If you're Loss, you don't accept peace for just yourselves in a group effort.

So this "token" peace offer can't have been taken seriously, and it seems perfectly understandable that if peace isn't an option, you call backup. That's how DT entered, not because we were trying to snipe a "cheap shot" or "opportunistic player-hating".

Get yer facts straight please! It makes my head hurt seeing these posts with little to no substantiation.

[Tromp]

[quote name='CubaQuerida' timestamp='1297878475' post='2635760']
CSN only offered a "partial peace" to the Loss/TIO front, as evidenced by the logs posted. If you're Loss, you don't accept peace for just yourselves in a group effort.
[/quote]
TIO is (partly?) at peace now...

White peace.

Care to explain what other terms there were offered then? As far as I can see no one had any intention of offering terms other then white peace as long as the war didn't expand.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Tromp

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1297876725' post='2635748']
Legacy, the least connected alliance
[/quote]

I keep seeing this. Why does that matter? Do you think DT though if they attacked Legacy their MDoAP partner, CSN, wouldn't protect them? And furthermore, if CSN didn't want to escalate the war, as so many people have pointed out, wouldn't they WANT DT to attack the least connected alliance? I just don't understand this logic at all...