Why is SF so terrible?

[MCRABT]

[quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1299540597' post='2655881']
*Pansy gulps down some Kool-Aid waits for Uncky Haf to tell a story.
[/quote]

Halfwits story telling is quite inventive, he needs to work on telling the truth more often.

[blueski]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299543102' post='2655930']
Where did I say it was in the charter? Unless they added it somewhere after I left, I am not aware of it being there. I suppose we can call it a "verbal no surrender clause" if it makes you happy. Tell you what. I'll start calling it a "verbal no surrender clause" if you stop posting drivel on the OWF ... deal?
[/quote]
A verbal clause, possibly the greatest invention ever. You didn't explicitly say it was in the charter but several RoK members did, apparently they've never read it. Clauses aren't verbal. Their exact definition is part of or a stipulation within a document. Like I said, however you try to spin it there is no clause preventing RoK from surrendering, that was just a story made up by someone looking for sympathy.

Surrender, don't surrender, I doubt anyone really cares aside from RoK's allies who are too nice to leave them hanging even if its requested.

[NoFish]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299543690' post='2655939']
A verbal clause, possibly the greatest invention ever. You didn't explicitly say it was in the charter but several RoK members did, apparently they've never read it. Clauses aren't verbal. Their exact definition is part of or a stipulation within a document. Like I said, however you try to spin it there is no clause preventing RoK from surrendering, that was just a story made up by someone looking for sympathy.

Surrender, don't surrender, I doubt anyone really cares aside from RoK's allies who are too nice to leave them hanging even if its requested.
[/quote]
You seem to care an awful lot. Jus' sayin'.

[blueski]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1299543857' post='2655943']
You seem to care an awful lot. Jus' sayin'.
[/quote]
How so?

[welshgazza1992]

[i]wow, this thread is still going. [/i]
[i]
So I'll repeat what has been said many times. Ragnarok doesn't surrender. We don't give up. Yes, we have been defeated in a war statistically, but we don't give up, we don't feel like we've had enough, not enough blood has been spilt yet... We're happy to keep fighting, we're content to go until we have all 151 nations at ZI. I, along with all the other RoKKers would rather that than us give up. [/i]
[i]
[/i]
[i]Surrendering is not what we do. We never have and we never will.[/i]
[i]
[/i]
[i]Poison Clan, either accept we don't give up and accept white peace... or continue fighting us. I really do not care which you chose, but please for the love of God, stop complaining.[/i]

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299543690' post='2655939']
A verbal clause, possibly the greatest invention ever. You didn't explicitly say it was in the charter but several RoK members did, apparently they've never read it. Clauses aren't verbal. Their exact definition is part of or a stipulation within a document. Like I said, however you try to spin it there is no clause preventing RoK from surrendering, that was just a story made up by someone looking for sympathy.

Surrender, don't surrender, I doubt anyone really cares aside from RoK's allies who are too nice to leave them hanging even if its requested.
[/quote]


I guess we don't have a deal then.

I think that "spin" is the most over-used term in all of Planet Bob. If you're going to e-lawyer, then fine. I co-founded Ragnarok and led the alliance for two of their three years of existence. I believe that makes me an expert on RoK's internal culture, structure, and philosophy. I instituted a no surrender clause from day one. If you don't like the word clause, then substitute another word. This clause has been in effect for over three years and is well known internally at Ragnarok. You can argue that there is no such clause all you like, but you are not qualified to do so.

Again. PC told RoK to surrender. They declined because they have a no surrender clause and guess what? There is nothing you can do to change that. I'm not sure why there is so much debate and arguing from PC and their allies. You want RoK to surrender? Then make them. Otherwise you can either fight until there is no more Bob or you agree to shake hands and walk away.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Van Hoo III

[NoFish]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299543925' post='2655944']
How so?
[/quote]
All the posts in this thread would imply that, no?

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299543925' post='2655944']
How so?
[/quote]


Because you won't shutup about it.

[Ogaden]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1299529849' post='2655703']
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]

Bob I take exception to this, first off you say RoK "jumped sides" by choosing which coalition they would support, then you have the gall to say SF is borrowing other people's strength to pursue grudges? How about the fact that SF alliances, the same ones you are bashing in this post, are currently at war because of your alliance's grudge with Polaris? GOD and RIA and all of Maroon fought alliances on VE's behalf to defend YOUR ally, not ours.

Did iFOK say thanks to us? Did you? I don't see anyone saying thank you. GOD went to war for VE and PB's behalf more than any other alliance in SF yet you single them out for criticism. This just goes to show you always saw us as a meatshield, and now we're a meatshield to toss under the bus.

Fark was right, and they tried to tell us but our leaders wouldn't listen and trusted you and what would become PB. We should have all done what Fark did.

[supercoolyellow]

SF is so terrible due to lack of Hoo.

[jekalle]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299543690' post='2655939']
A verbal clause, possibly the greatest invention ever. You didn't explicitly say it was in the charter but several RoK members did, apparently they've never read it. Clauses aren't verbal. Their exact definition is part of or a stipulation within a document. Like I said, however you try to spin it there is no clause preventing RoK from surrendering, that was just a story made up by someone looking for sympathy.

Surrender, don't surrender, I doubt anyone really cares aside from RoK's allies who are too nice to leave them hanging even if its requested.
[/quote]

Honestly, I think you just like hearing the sound of your own voice. It isn't like this clause, verbal or not, just suddenly popped up yesterday. Multiple individuals have confirmed that RoK has long followed the 'No Surrender' mindset since it's infancy. You've already made up your mind and that's fine, however you've spent a good deal of your own time just repeating the same thing over and over again. Save us all the trouble of having to reread it.

[blueski]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1299544095' post='2655949']
All the posts in this thread would imply that, no?
[/quote]
Show me where I said that RoK should surrender, I'd like to correct that.

[blueski]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299544055' post='2655947']
I guess we don't have a deal then.

I think that "spin" is the most over-used term in all of Planet Bob. If you're going to e-lawyer, then fine. I co-founded Ragnarok and led the alliance for two of their three years of existence. I believe that makes me an expert on RoK's internal culture, structure, and philosophy. I instituted a no surrender clause from day one. If you don't like the word clause, then substitute another word. This clause has been in effect for over three years and is well known internally at Ragnarok. You can argue that there is no such clause all you like, but you are not qualified to do so.

Again. PC told RoK to surrender. They declined because they have a no surrender clause and guess what? There is nothing you can do to change that. I'm not sure why there is so much debate and arguing from PC and their allies. You want RoK to surrender? Then make them. Otherwise you can either fight until there is no more Bob or you agree to shake hands and walk away.
[/quote]
An idea or motto is not a clause, and the point is that RoK members were claiming it was in the charter.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1299544095' post='2655949']
All the posts in this thread would imply that, no?
[/quote]

Not necessarily, my friend. People tend to vocally dislike the unnecessary, particularly when the unnecessary is being unnecessarily continued for unnecessary reasons.

...

[blueski]

[quote name='welshgazza1992' timestamp='1299543961' post='2655946']
[i]Poison Clan, either accept we don't give up and accept white peace... or continue fighting us. I really do not care which you chose, but please for the love of God, stop complaining.[/i]
[/quote]
They're not.

[NoFish]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299544299' post='2655955']
Show me where I said that RoK should surrender, I'd like to correct that.
[/quote]
All I'm saying is that for someone who supposedly doesn't care, you sure are posting a lot to tell us all about how little you care.

[welshgazza1992]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299544449' post='2655958']
An idea or motto is not a clause, and the point is that RoK members were claiming it was in the charter.
[/quote]

As a member of Ragnarok, trust me... RoKkers do not surrender. It is that simple. It doesn't have to be written down anywhere in some official document.

But we will prove it to you that Ragnarok does not surrender.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299544505' post='2655960']
They're not.
[/quote]


Yes, yes they are. Everywhere that they possibly can.

[NLights]

RoK has been defeated by PC - hell I think several RoK members have said as much in this very thread. Following that two things become important. A) Does the public sympathize with RoK or is their a public outcry over what PC is offering (ex. CSN - DT)? B) Does PC have [i]any[/i] reason at all to change their offer (ex. allied pressure or the possibility of losing)?

Unfortunately for RoK the answer to both seems to be no. No one outside of the expected really understands why RoK is doing this. Second, PC seems to be under zero pressure politically and it's already been determined that PC has the upper hand, which more than likely won't change.

Regardless, RoK seems to be pretty set in their ways and I guess I can respect that to some degree. Another part of me is just stunned with the hubris involved in this decision. Oh well, to hell...and hopefully back RoK.

[blueski]

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1299544591' post='2655962']
All I'm saying is that for someone who supposedly doesn't care, you sure are posting a lot to tell us all about how little you care.
[/quote]
I don't, and the only times I've said so is after you insist I do.

I like to set the record straight when I see people lying, that's the only reason I'm here.

[USMC123]

Honestly, my mind is blown RoK.

First off, this whole "no surrender clause" bit is utter BS. You guys never had one the whole time I was in RoK (nearly two years mind you). In fact, I distinctly remember those of us that were in the Royal Council laughing at OcUK about their no-surrender clause and talking about how stupid a thing it was to have one.

The irony is painful.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299544993' post='2655970']
I don't, and the only times I've said so is after you insist I do.

I like to set the record straight when I see people lying, that's the only reason I'm here.
[/quote]


Despite that several members of RoK past and present (leadership included) have stated that such a clause exists, blueski of GOONS does not believe one ever did. Noted. Consider yourself free from the burden of arguing your point now.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1299544055' post='2655947']
I guess we don't have a deal then.

I think that "spin" is the most over-used term in all of Planet Bob. If you're going to e-lawyer, then fine. I co-founded Ragnarok and led the alliance for two of their three years of existence. I believe that makes me an expert on RoK's internal culture, structure, and philosophy. I instituted a no surrender clause from day one. If you don't like the word clause, then substitute another word. This clause has been in effect for over three years and is well known internally at Ragnarok. You can argue that there is no such clause all you like, but you are not qualified to do so.

Again. PC told RoK to surrender. They declined because they have a no surrender clause and guess what? There is nothing you can do to change that. I'm not sure why there is so much debate and arguing from PC and their allies. You want RoK to surrender? Then make them. Otherwise you can either fight until there is no more Bob or you agree to shake hands and walk away.
[/quote]

Wouldn't you say though, that focus should be on finding a workable solution, rather then absolutest statements?

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='USMC123' timestamp='1299545063' post='2655972']
Honestly, my mind is blown RoK.

First off, this whole "no surrender clause" bit is utter BS. You guys never had one the whole time I was in RoK (nearly two years mind you). In fact, I distinctly remember those of us that were in the Royal Council laughing at OcUK about their no-surrender clause and talking about how stupid a thing it was to have one.

The irony is painful.
[/quote]


OcUK didn't have to surrender, they were offered white peace. Repeatedly.

[Van Hoo III]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1299545200' post='2655976']
Wouldn't you say though, that focus should be on finding a workable solution, rather then absolutest statements?
[/quote]


"Polar is out so we have no reason to fight" [b]is[/b] a workable solution. Demanding a surrender is pointless.