Valtamdraugr Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I have absolutely no issue wish losing. Giving up, though? No thanks. We lost=we lost. We surrender=we were losing, so we gave up. See the difference? It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a VERY big deal to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1299524196' post='2655616'] Its not about the bills. More to do with moving without leaving you the forwarding address. Got to say their new forums are rather sexy. Also as regards the first sentence of yours, you have been in Ragnarok, what did you expect them to do? You expect them to do something you know they wont? [/quote] I had never been on the losing side of a war during my year or so with Rok and the 3 wars I participated in, and I wasn't aware that a no surrender policy existed. I would expect Rok to show proper sportsmanship. To use a football analogy, the Jets/Steelers AFC championship game the final score was 19-24, sure the Jets dominated the second half and if there was a fifth quarter they probably would have won, but at the end of the game the Steelers won. You dont see the Jets saying they refuse to acknowledge they lost. Why? because that would be stupid and they would look like a bunch of juvenile crybabies. This is a game and PC outplayed Rok, I consider it poor form for Rok not to acknowledge that. This isn't kindergarten, not everyone gets a participation trophy, there is such a thing as a winner and a loser. The worst part is that the leadership of Rok is made up of mostly all adults, if they were run by 15 year olds I could understand, but you guys are in your 20s and 30s, act like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1299525562' post='2655640'] I have absolutely no issue wish losing. Giving up, though? No thanks. We lost=we lost. We surrender=we were losing, so we gave up. See the difference? It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a VERY big deal to me. [/quote] Okay, so make the announcement "RoK loses to PC" then. This doesn't need to drag on, you're only hurting yourselves. Edited March 7, 2011 by Sardonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1299524487' post='2655622'] Didn't Rok hold some alliance at eternal war over a no surrender clause in their charter? [/quote] No. They were offered white peace and declined. They decided they were having fun and didn't want to end the war. You did not, however, see us complaining or whining* about it on IRC and on these forums. * Not really directed at you personally, Zoom3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Sweeeeet Ronny D' timestamp='1299525785' post='2655643'] I had never been on the losing side of a war during my year or so with Rok and the 3 wars I participated in, and I wasn't aware that a no surrender policy existed. I would expect Rok to show proper sportsmanship. To use a football analogy, the Jets/Steelers AFC championship game the final score was 19-24, sure the Jets dominated the second half and if there was a fifth quarter they probably would have won, but at the end of the game the Steelers won. You dont see the Jets saying they refuse to acknowledge they lost. Why? because that would be stupid and they would look like a bunch of juvenile crybabies. This is a game and PC outplayed Rok, I consider it poor form for Rok not to acknowledge that. This isn't kindergarten, not everyone gets a participation trophy, there is such a thing as a winner and a loser. The worst part is that the leadership of Rok is made up of mostly all adults, if they were run by 15 year olds I could understand, but you guys are in your 20s and 30s, act like it. [/quote] Aye, i can see why its a good thing you left. Its better for the Rokkers, and for you as well. And your football analogy? Does not really work man, see there is a time limit to a football match, not so in a war. If you figure RoK is defeated today, well then make them surrender. Bring the might of your arms to bear on them and force them to type out their names on the surrender document. If you cant do that, leave the field. Or stay on it and enjoy the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1299525817' post='2655645'] Okay, so make the announcement "RoK loses to PC" then. This doesn't need to drag on, you're only hurting yourselves. [/quote] Or it can just say "Polar is no longer in the war, so the two alliances no longer have a reason to fight." If PC absolutely needs to point out the stats, then I guess that is fine. The only reason they really require "surrender" or anything similar is because they just don't like RoK much and want to be able to say they beat them into submission. Numbers don't lie, there is no need for some formal surrender ... except to boost PC's ego, of course. Furthermore, I'm not sure why people are trying to e-lawyer RoK's philosophy. They don't have to have written documentation that they don't surrender when it is known among the membership that that is the case. Anyway, if you want them to surrender make them do so. That is the point of surrender, yeah? Edited March 7, 2011 by Van Hoo III Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299526177' post='2655654'] Or it can just say "Polar is no longer in the war, so the two alliances no longer have a reason to fight." If PC absolutely needs to point out the stats, then I guess that is fine. The only reason they really require "surrender" or anything similar is because they just don't like RoK much and want to be able to say they beat them into submission. Numbers don't lie, there is no need for some formal surrender ... except to boost PC's ego, of course. Furthermore, I'm not sure why people are trying to e-lawyer RoK's philosophy. They don't have to have written documentation that they don't surrender when it is known among the membership that that is the case. Anyway, if you want them to surrender make them do so. That is the point of surrender, yeah? [/quote] You really ought to have let TPF pound them instead of standing there like a god-damned wall between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaGneT Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1299516914' post='2655501'] When I say that he's a "low-rent Electron Sponge", I wasn't entirely kidding. No, at some point he'll run afoul of the wrong group of people at the wrong time as Sponge did and get served a steaming plate of crow with a side of humiliation. That doesn't lessen his impact on history, anymore than Sponge's fall from power lessened what he did in the time frame leading up to it. [/quote] Please do not insult a man of the caliber of the Fleet Admiral Doctor Electron Sponge (did I get that right?) by comparing him to the likes of Pxychosis. Low-rent is such an egregious understatement. Sup, Hal You are right about him running afoul of the wrong bunch, but you missed one point. He already has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1299526300' post='2655656'] You really ought to have let TPF pound them instead of standing there like a god-damned wall between the two. [/quote] But Alfred, we "abandoned" them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Valtamdraugr' timestamp='1299525562' post='2655640'] I have absolutely no issue wish losing. Giving up, though? No thanks. We lost=we lost. We surrender=we were losing, so we gave up. See the difference? It may not be a big deal to you, but it is a VERY big deal to me. [/quote] If this is the case have you communicated this to PC? do they know this? because now PC and Rok are just wasting time on semantics, and I would think that could be easily remedied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Chalaskan' timestamp='1299479000' post='2655126'] As far as Rok, well they place NpO above the rest of their treaty partners, so seems to me they don't really need to be in that bloc...ya, I'm a bit biased here. [/quote] Don't say anything unless you actually know what happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tblindparrot Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 You don't lose until you surrender. The greatest players in this games history have never surrendered. See one, Moldavi, I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1299526145' post='2655652'] Aye, i can see why its a good thing you left. Its better for the Rokkers, and for you as well. And your football analogy? Does not really work man, see there is a time limit to a football match, not so in a war. If you figure RoK is defeated today, well then make them surrender. Bring the might of your arms to bear on them and force them to type out their names on the surrender document. If you cant do that, leave the field. Or stay on it and enjoy the war. [/quote] Yeah you are right there was a reason I left, and it probably is better for both of us. But my football analogy was based information I received from members of Rok, and my following assumption that they wouldn't surrender because they believe they are winning the war with PC. But if they actually reached the point where they can acknowledge that they are infact losing, then its just semantics that PC and Rok are arguing over I dont see why both parties cant end the war today. AvT there is a time limit in this war its when one side reaches ZI and Bill lock, My guess is Rok reaches that point before PC. (in hindsight chess would have been a better analogy, than my football one) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 RoK are just being dumb at this point. If they won't accept a zero-reps peace after jumping sides – a very generous offer – then I'll personally be happy to see them crushed into nothing through their own stupidity. But at least they're pretty much just hurting themselves, and hopefully Polar would feel able to take peace without them if they're set on not taking that peace offer. CSN are perhaps trying to show the world that they're important? They don't have a record of acting the way they did over the DT front, so perhaps we can put that down to bad influences, or perhaps it's a show of their true attitude in a position of power. Time will tell. GOD have always been looking for ways to throw other people's power around, and it looks like they're at it again. They are only on that front due to three links in the treaty chain, and UPN entered as a direct MDP partner of the initial target, so there's really no justification for them to be pushing anything on them, much less a total refusal of peace. SF have always played that game, with all their individual MDPs with the NPO under the Hegemony and then their multiple ties to C&G and now to PB as well. At one time they did have significant strength of their own, and those ties were two way and SF was a meaningful political player. Now they are just using other people's strength to pursue their own grudges. It is very sad to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299501844' post='2655360'] Xiphosis is really the sole reason why we wound up in Hegemony. So yeah, it'd be fair to say I consider him a lesser version of noWedge. He declares wars over the same kinds of OOC reasons as noWedge used to. The main difference between him and Wedgie is that generally his allies are more responsible than Wedge's old allies and do not enable him in the kinds of abuses that Wedge used to pull. This can be seen by the fact that Aurora Borealis is still around, while (say) CoAN is not. You've got one thing right, Valhalla and GOD do have a lot in common. [b]It is kinda ironic to see Val complaining about allies throwing them under the bus, though, given your actions since 2009.[/b] I knew there was a reason RoK and Invicta used to be really close. Nice to see someone taking a stand. [/quote] LOL youll take a stand as long as it doesnt last longer than a week then youll be crying for peace. [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1299516939' post='2655502'] You know perfectly well what I am talking about. I know you'd prefer to portray yourselves as loyal allies who would never plot wars against your own MDP partners, but some of us know better. [/quote] OH no i dont, please enlighten me as to when we have ever plotted against a MDP partner. Ive got my tinfoil hat on so feel free to disperse your verbal diahrea. Cuz that is what it will be one big stinking pile of !@#$ comming from your mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1299525259' post='2655638'] Haf has started drinking heavily [/quote] Started? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='The Trail' timestamp='1299517727' post='2655512'] Being an ally of said alliance (albeit holding no government positions) care to elaborate? because personally, I think you are full of well you know what I mean [/quote] Valhalla have offered future aid to other alliances who wanted to roll Poseidon members. Everyone knows this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBucks Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1299529849' post='2655703'] SF have always played that game, with all their individual MDPs with the NPO under the Hegemony and then their multiple ties to C&G and now to PB as well. At one time they did have significant strength of their own, and those ties were two way and SF was a meaningful political player. Now they are just using other people's strength to pursue their own grudges. It is very sad to see. [/quote] Name them, name every tie each and every SF member has with PB. Name every tie each and every SF member had with C&G before PB came around. Edit: Grammar. Edited March 7, 2011 by LordBucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 It's amazing that it's taken so long for this to bubble to the surface since SF has been running interference for GOD since the bloc's foundation. They somehow always wriggle out of being held responsible, and I'm sure they will here as well. When it matters GOD is very good at shutting up and letting RIA do the talking. You can't deny its effectiveness! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='LordBucks' timestamp='1299531624' post='2655726'] Name them, name every tie each and every SF member has with PB. Name every tie each and every SF member had with C&G before PB came around. Edit: Grammar. [/quote] GOD-VE, RoK-VE, RIA-VE, R&R-FOK GOD-MK, CSN-Athens I reclaim my prize. Anyways, really not that large a number. To be a de-facto bloc with PB we would need 30* treaties, and we have 4. SF and PB have a 13% overlap. *: [size="1"]11C2 - (5C2 + 6C2) = 55 - (15 + 10) = 30[/size] Edited March 7, 2011 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordBucks Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299534871' post='2655769'] GOD-VE, RoK-VE, RIA-VE, R&R-FOK GOD-MK, CSN-Athens I reclaim my prize. [/quote] Clearly, all SF does is treaty those with power. Never mind the fact all current PB ties came long before PB was even an idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1299524487' post='2655622'] Didn't Rok hold some alliance at eternal war over a no surrender clause in their charter? [/quote] OcUK, which despite all efforts at giving them peace directly and through 3rd parties such as NpO, refused it (in fact in the last contact I had with Grub regarding the matter he became so absolutely frustrated with them even he recommended wiping them out...). Their claims to have infiltrated Ragnarok's government and having placed a number of members into Rok finally earned their leader a Rok Recruiting Medal that I awarded on these very forums. Please don't compare OcUk to Ragnarok, even if you can make them rhyme, totally different scenario, and oh by the way, Rok did finally grant them total white peace in the end. edit: grammar is our friend Edited March 7, 2011 by ChairmanHal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299534871' post='2655769'] GOD-VE, RoK-VE, RIA-VE, R&R-FOK GOD-MK, CSN-Athens I reclaim my prize. [/quote] you forgot GOD-GOONS. [quote name='Tautology' timestamp='1299524684' post='2655626'] For someone who claims to think their alliance is winning, you sure are whining a lot, Stewie. Make your mind up. [/quote] Are you a moron? Are you unable to follow along with a simple discussion? If its not either of those you've run out of distractions and evasions to play so you had to resort to the old whining/crying bit. Let's go back and see what Stewie was whining about. [quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299517975' post='2655517'] The no surrender clause has existed since RoK was founded. It has nothing to do with any "winning streak" ... [/quote] [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1299523964' post='2655611'] Where on their Charter does it have a No Surrender Clause? Cos none of PC can find it anywhere. [/quote] [quote name='Acca Dacca' timestamp='1299524293' post='2655621'] That hasnt been updated in ages.[/quote] [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1299524493' post='2655623'] Surely it should have been there from the first time the Charter was in place if the "No Surrender Clause has existed since ROK was founded." [/quote] Yeah, you're just full of !@#$ Taut. So what is it? A secret no surrender clause has been in your charter from the beginning? It was there but got lost during spring cleaning? It was never written except upon your hearts? Its in your private internal charter, not the dummy public one? I don't care one way or the other if you want to stay at war forever, just don't make up lies to justify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I thought GOD cancelled their treaty with us because Xiph didn't like a treaty one of our allies was signing or some jazz like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1299536122' post='2655791'] I thought GOD cancelled their treaty with us because Xiph didn't like a treaty one of our allies was signing or some jazz like that. [/quote] They did, but I think it was a list of every treaty SF members ever had with Pandora members. 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.