arch3004 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1299453618' post='2654756'] Ahem, im sure alot of other threads will soon be derailed into "why wont rok surrender, PC #1 huurrr" so lets try and make this easy. PC needs to surrender to RoK. Why? PC is winning in stats and in overall damage caused, they know it, im sure most of CN knows it. Im sure even if they did surrender to us most people would still see it as a PC victory. So why dont they surrender? Because they're proud, because they're having fun, [b]because they're helping an ally. and so is RoK.[/b][/quote] You really feel you're helping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1299457706' post='2654829'] So because RoK doesn't want to surrender, they are all of a sudden honor-less? It also seems that you forgot the alternative your alliance proposed: 1. White peace (no surrender) + mandatory tech. deals So since both options were turned down, I think it has something to do with their own self-respect and pride. Clearly you underestimated Kait's and the rest of RoK's resolve; that is no one's fault except for yours. Whether or not you find that to be advantageous is not my prerogative. [/quote] Tech Deals still require a surrender term - So They'd still have surrendered. What we're offering basically is white peace, but just them admitting that they lost to us. Is that REALLY so hard to stomach? That the mighty ROK went in against an alliance heavily in combat with NpO alongside STA and still managed to lose. Yeah, guess even I'd be embarrassed if that happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynic2 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I wouldn't go so far as to say that SF as a bloc are terrible. In fact the majority of their signatories tend to be reasonable alliances. RIA, RNR, and RoK don't really have a history of being unreasonable either in victory or defeat. Even with the hiccup that CSN had in the whole DT situation one cannot point at them and say that they have a [i]history[/i] of being unreasonable, quite the opposite their history is of actions that are reasonable and honorable. I haven't had any kind of dealings with GOD so I can't really give an opinion on them but as a whole I don't think SF is a terrible bloc. A couple of their members may be involved in unpopular situations but this doesn't mean collectively they are terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1299458445' post='2654839'] Tech Deals still require a surrender term - So They'd still have surrendered. What we're offering basically is white peace, but just them admitting that they lost to us. Is that REALLY so hard to stomach? That the mighty ROK went in against an alliance heavily in combat with NpO alongside STA and still managed to lose. Yeah, guess even I'd be embarrassed if that happened. [/quote] Uh, maybe you don't understand this, but if you are asking for surrender terms and/or tech. deals, that is not white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1299459051' post='2654843'] Uh, maybe you don't understand this, but if you are asking for surrender terms and/or tech. deals, that is not white peace. [/quote] I'm sure he understands perfectly, because he never said it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrcalkin Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Believland' timestamp='1299456238' post='2654807'] That's due to his treaties. Anyone could do that in all honesty. Just ally some of the bigger treaty whores in DH then expand yourself. Then just be a !@#$@#$ !@#$%. [/quote] Believe it or not, its not as easy as you think to get people to bend to your will. There have been plenty of alliances well-wrapped in treaties that didn't have the personal relationships or loyalty to get what they wanted. Everything is a two-way street and Xiph didn't just happen to become influential simply because he was there, nor because he was a "!@#$@#$ !@#$%", nor because he was once allied to us treaty whores in DH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Wait a minute...RV is in NSO...and wasnt NSO the one to post that list of alliances that need to disband? Not gonna look at the list, but I'm sure they said UPN should disband...so...Xiph is just doing what you asked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1299455924' post='2654803'] Why should PC Surrender?? So that RoK keeps their Unbeaten record which I understand is the ONLY reason ROK are keeping the entire NpO Front at war alongside Xiphy. ROK. You have been defeated at upper tier, middle tier and we will beat you at lower tier, even when we've been and still technically are outnumbered 2-1 / 3-1 now in certain ranges. [/quote] They haven't yet begun to fight. [img]http://westlakehomeschool.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/jones2.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted March 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1299460496' post='2654858'] Wait a minute...RV is in NSO...and wasnt NSO the one to post that list of alliances that need to disband? Not gonna look at the list, but I'm sure they said UPN should disband...so...Xiph is just doing what you asked [/quote] [color="#0000FF"]That was just Dopp. Not NSO. I myself am unashamed to proclaim myself a "moralist."[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1299445028' post='2654611'] Xiph is what is wrong with CN, plain and simple. A CN without him is a far brighter world and anyone who thinks different needs to open their eyes. He is the sole member of the upper echelon of alliance leaders trying to carry on the New Pacific Order's old style of play that we all fought so hard with to destroy. [/quote] I really have nothing further to add, well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Thanks, RV, this thread is an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believland Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='mrcalkin' timestamp='1299460372' post='2654856'] Believe it or not, its not as easy as you think to get people to bend to your will. There have been plenty of alliances well-wrapped in treaties that didn't have the personal relationships or loyalty to get what they wanted. Everything is a two-way street and Xiph didn't just happen to become influential simply because he was there, nor because he was a "!@#$@#$ !@#$%", nor because he was once allied to us treaty whores in DH. [/quote] Believe it or not, it kinda is. You just get born with that type of personality. And yes being persuasive is something that you're born with. And don't take that treaty whore line in bad taste. Frankly, I like Umbrella. And if you doubt that just ask how many times I query Roq. Edited March 7, 2011 by Believland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Looking at this from a scholarly approach, both GOD and CSN serve a distinct purpose. Neither alliance is strong enough to do anything on their own, however they have backing enough to get what they want. The power behind their words must watch what is says because public opinion is often a fickle thing and can see them removed from power. So while GOD and CSN are spouting their mouths, they are saying what the larger alliances wish to be saying, the major difference is that when the tide shifts it will be easier for the larger more powerful alliances to just sell GOD and CSN off as being the "big mouthed bad guys" and align themselves with another powerful set of friends. In truth, they are doing the same thing the GGA did when referring to NPO's ability to back up their words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 RoK and SF are terrible and they should both disband. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1299453260' post='2654748'] I understand that, I'm just curious as to how long the war had to last for NoR to come to DT's aid. Generally if an ally doesnt come to someones aid after a week or so they arent coming...let alone over a month [/quote] They didn't want our help, we stood by in case some alliance decided to bandwagon in on DT. If it had come to that point regrettable as it may have been we would have broke our agreement and came to their aid, that simple really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='sippyjuice' timestamp='1299444198' post='2654592'] GDA fought both CSN and GOD during Karma, and as the president at the time, I interacted with the leadership of both alliances. CSN was fairly reasonable during both Karma and Bi-Polar, and I'm hoping the recent demands were simply a mistake that will not be repeated. I don't like seeing alliances travel down bad paths. As for GOD? Let's just say, my hopes for them are nonexistent. [/quote] We were so terrible to you in Karma, weren't we? You know with those harsh terms we gave you after making you hold out through a whole week of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ace072199 Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Natan' timestamp='1299445028' post='2654611'] Xiph is what is wrong with CN, plain and simple. A CN without him is a far brighter world and anyone who thinks different needs to open their eyes. He is the sole member of the upper echelon of alliance leaders trying to carry on the New Pacific Order's old style of play that we all fought so hard with to destroy. [/quote] [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1299461855' post='2654874'] I really have nothing further to add, well said. [/quote] I second this. As for CSN, I don't think they are terrible, Maybe I am wrong but I think the recent issue with DT was the first time CSN has demanded anything as unreasonable as this. Actually, isn't it the first time CSN has demanded reps at all? I knew a lot of the members of CSN from years ago and I know their leader is competent and very intelligent. I am hoping they learn from this and don't make this standard for future wars. Although, I have a feeling if they stick with SF, they wont need to worry about demanding reps. Edited March 7, 2011 by ace072199 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Nukem Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 SF have always been solid people. We rolled NPO back in Karma when I was in RoK (That was an awesome war and SF were great allies and friends). Plus SF have a lot of fighting power. I have not always been on SF's side but you're arguments against CSN are invalid. CSN isn't that hotheaded of an alliance and now that Liz is in power it'll get a lot calmer too. Also Xiph is just always been a hotead it seems. Also pot meet kettle . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 I don't know what to say. I like Ragnarok, obviously. About Xiphosis, I think it's safe to say that most of the people who liked him before probably still like him now, although I know of a few folks whose minds have been changed. And those who didn't like him before? They like him even less. The big question is whether those in the latter group have 'doing something about it' on their long-term agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 There are no less than 6 "SF are terrible/disbanding/getting rolled" threads a year. This one is only different because it has some points, while one is slightly flawed as CSN's drama I see as a one time deal. Xiph is just a bit of a hothead, I doubt he'll jkeep refusing UPN for too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1299458445' post='2654839'] Tech Deals still require a surrender term - So They'd still have surrendered. [b]What we're offering basically is white peace[/b], but just them admitting that they lost to us. Is that REALLY so hard to stomach? That the mighty ROK went in against an alliance heavily in combat with NpO alongside STA and still managed to lose. Yeah, guess even I'd be embarrassed if that happened. [/quote] [quote name='blueski' timestamp='1299459157' post='2654846'] [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1299459051' post='2654843'] Uh, maybe you don't understand this, but if you are asking for surrender terms and/or tech. deals, that is not white peace. [/quote] I'm sure he understands perfectly, [b]because he never said it was[/b]. [/quote] riiggghhhttt as far as i know we havent told any of our allies that they cant peace out untill we do as well, RoK will keep fighting untill we no longer have a reason to(aka NpO gets peace) or we get terms that we agree upon(we dont surrender to you...or at least any AA that has stewie in it ;P) PC wouldn't surrender in our postion, im sure they would keep fighting, but since it us we're honourless cowards? Edited March 7, 2011 by Systemfailure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falloutboy Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Why would Xiph want to disband UPN. We aren't even at war with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Falloutboy' timestamp='1299464113' post='2654919'] Why would Xiph want to disband UPN. We aren't even at war with them. [/quote] apparently thats what he does. RoK Merges Xiph Disbands SF is terrible and needs to merge into itself and disband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueski Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 [quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1299463960' post='2654915'] riiggghhhttt [/quote] [quote]What we're offering [b]basically[/b] is white peace, [b]but just them admitting that they lost to us[/b][/quote] You may be the only one who doesn't understand qualifiers. [quote]PC wouldn't surrender in our postion, im sure they would keep fighting, but since it us we're honourless cowards?[/quote] Yeah, I never said that. Just that you're stupid for not accepting what every sane person has seen as fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1299461855' post='2654874'] I really have nothing further to add, well said. [/quote] [quote name='ace072199' timestamp='1299462915' post='2654896'] I second this. [/quote] I believe you guys missed the scent of sarcasm. Also, this thread is putting the cart before the horse, etc etc. Edited March 7, 2011 by Il Impero Romano 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.