Fallen Fool Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300061552' post='2663600']We rolled Polar.[/quote]Is this misconception common in the ranks of the [i][b]Victorious Alliances[/b][/i]™? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1300061339' post='2663585'] Quick question, does anyone know what this war was about again? I feel it's gotten lost somewhere Also, shouldn't other combatants on this front get white peace now the main defender is out of the war? Congrats on peace, etc. [/quote] I would suggest asking in private leadership of VE and then leadership of Polaris, and using your answers from both to come to a valid conclusion. At the root of the issue though is Lennox who really created this whole war on his own accord and played both sides quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeaR_LeSs Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congrats on peace. I enjoyed fighting you guys, special shout out to Grub and JP. Very honorable and respectful people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axolotlia Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1300061649' post='2663608'] Not on this point, I was just checking to make sure. [/quote] As far as I can tell, the only alliances still fighting on [u]this[/u] front are PC-RoK Edit- Word choice Edited March 14, 2011 by Axolotlia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan100 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Good luck rebuilding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congratulations, to all involved. Its nice to see no massive reps. Its odd that anybody could be against these terms, its 1 month not mandatory, and its a tech deal. Oh well so, here is to a quick end to this one and a quick beginning to the next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congrats to our allies and other parties here on attaining peace. Reps are very reasonable and are actually a bit lighter than I expected them to be. Both sides fought hard, and were able to end the war like gentlemen. This is just a very good announcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Every time I read a post by HeroOfTime I get this feeling of disgust and want to defect. I can stomach being on the NPO's side, but being with HoT is just a lot to bare. Good to see these ends being wrapped up all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Sulmar' timestamp='1300061325' post='2663583'] Yes that would seem to be the idea behind the term, but I could definitely see a case being made for only one alliance being needed to want a tech deal. There is no explicit right of refusal in #2, just the optional clause. All I'm really saying here is that the wording could have been better. [/quote] Uh, I guess, but have you ever tried to tech deal with a guy who won't accept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Garythe74th' timestamp='1300061747' post='2663613'] OK. If you say so! And on a separate note, at least two of our opponents were good fighters. I hope the rebuilding goes smoothly for all. [/quote] It's not debatable. A spy was CLEARLY told to spy on VE. Enjoy rebuilding. [quote]We rolled Polar.[/quote] I, personally, rolled you, sir. [quote]Can't even capitalize your sentences, were you by any chance on the writing committee for these terms?[/quote] And [i]you[/i] can't even specify who can't "capitalize [their] sentences". It's a basic fact that in every piece of writing of any substantial length, there are errors. Get over it. Edited March 14, 2011 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) Quick question. Article 1 only mentions that NpO may not [b]send[/b] foreign aid, it does not say anything about receiving it, yet article 2, which is coined as an exception to article 1, mentions that the only foreign aid the New Polar Order may send [b]or receive[/b] will be between members of the New Polar Order and the Victorious Alliances... So my question is, is it an oversight that article 1 does not mention receiving aid or is it a mistake that article 2 seemingly imposes an additional restriction on NpO? EDIT: Oh and congrats on peace everyone Edited March 14, 2011 by Megamind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 o/ Everyone for a good war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='JT Jag' timestamp='1300059536' post='2663471'] Emphasis added. So much for this! [/quote] 6 days short, wow you sure got him!!! [img]http://forums.coj-cn.co.cc/Smileys/expanded/haw.gif[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Fallen Fool' timestamp='1300060920' post='2663556'] The one month provision in the first clause is binding for all economic terms. [/quote] Why didn't Polaris make sure that this was explicit in the terms? Why do you just assume that VE and friends are going to happily release you from the rest of the terms once Article 1 expires? [quote name="Choson"]The only gaping hole is the one in your head. How can you be so dense when people from both sides are saying that the terms expire after one month, period?[/quote] Because Article 2 simply [i]doesn't[/i] expire, and Polaris is relying on the good will of VE and friends to release them from the rest of the terms after one month. Read the goddamn terms. [quote]1. The New Polar Order may not send foreign aid of any type, internally or externally, for a period one month unless where excepted by Article 2.[/quote] Article One clearly expires after one month. So after one month, it's irrelevant. OK, cool beans. So lets look at Article Two: [quote]2. The only foreign aid the New Polar Order may send or receive will be between members of the New Polar Order and the Victorious Alliances, via tech deals at a rate to be determined. Neither the New Polar Order nor the Victorious Alliances are required to utilize this exception.[/quote] Do you see any expiration date in here? No? Neither do I. Therefore, it simply doesn't expire, unless one of the two parties decides to withdraw from these terms. Polaris withdrawing of course would lead to a new round of wars. So that means that Polaris is leaving it up to trust, that the "victorious alliances" will just happily release them in one month. Yes, term 2 is merely optional tech deals and not mandatory reps (The word "may" solidifies this fact). Actually, Article 2, being an exception to Article 1, allows Polaris to tech deal internally with it's own nations, since what you tried to write was semantically ambiguous. Except Polar can't merely send aid to itself, it HAS to tech deal with itself. Sort of ridiculous, but this is what happens when you have a bunch of illiterate morons get together to draft terms. Might I suggest going back to the drawing board? Edited March 14, 2011 by HeroofTime55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyriq Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 You guys are doing it right. Congrats on peace and glorious victory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congrats on achieving peace to our allies in the New Polar Order. It has been fun fighting alongside you. Also good show by PC, FOK, iFOK, VE, and MN on the terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choson Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1300062203' post='2663632'] 6 days short, wow you sure got him!!! [img]http://forums.coj-cn.co.cc/Smileys/expanded/haw.gif[/img] [/quote] Sure did! Now where's that huge essay about NpO being the true victors here!? Your audience awaits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary the 74th Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300062000' post='2663627'] It's not debatable. A spy was CLEARLY told to spy on VE. [/quote] I cannot find the words. Edited March 14, 2011 by Garythe74th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300062231' post='2663633'] Why didn't Polaris make sure that this was explicit in the terms? Why do you just assume that VE and friends are going to happily release you from the rest of the terms once Article 1 expires? Because Article 2 simply [i]doesn't[/i] expire, and Polaris is relying on the good will of VE and friends to release them from the rest of the terms after one month. Read the goddamn terms. Article One clearly expires after one month. So after one month, it's irrelevant. OK, cool beans. So lets look at Article Two: Do you see any expiration date in here? No? Neither do I. Therefore, it simply doesn't expire, unless one of the two parties decides to withdraw from these terms. Polaris withdrawing of course would lead to a new round of wars. So that means that Polaris is leaving it up to trust, that the "victorious alliances" will just happily release them in one month. Yes, term 2 is merely optional tech deals and not mandatory reps (The word "may" solidifies this fact). Actually, Article 2, being an exception to Article 1, allows Polaris to tech deal internally with it's own nations, since what you tried to write was semantically ambiguous. Except Polar can't merely send aid to itself, it HAS to tech deal with itself. Sort of ridiculous, but this is what happens when you have a bunch of illiterate morons get together to draft terms. Might I suggest going back to the drawing board? [/quote] Shut. Up. HoT. You're. Wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choson Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300062231' post='2663633'] Why didn't Polaris make sure that this was explicit in the terms? Why do you just assume that VE and friends are going to happily release you from the rest of the terms once Article 1 expires? Because Article 2 simply [i]doesn't[/i] expire, and Polaris is relying on the good will of VE and friends to release them from the rest of the terms after one month. Read the goddamn terms. Article One clearly expires after one month. So after one month, it's irrelevant. OK, cool beans. So lets look at Article Two: Do you see any expiration date in here? No? Neither do I. Therefore, it simply doesn't expire, unless one of the two parties decides to withdraw from these terms. Polaris withdrawing of course would lead to a new round of wars. So that means that Polaris is leaving it up to trust, that the "victorious alliances" will just happily release them in one month. Yes, term 2 is merely optional tech deals and not mandatory reps (The word "may" solidifies this fact). Actually, Article 2, being an exception to Article 1, allows Polaris to tech deal internally with it's own nations, since what you tried to write was semantically ambiguous. Except Polar can't merely send aid to itself, it HAS to tech deal with itself. Sort of ridiculous, but this is what happens when you have a bunch of illiterate morons get together to draft terms. Might I suggest going back to the drawing board? [/quote] The fact that both NpO [size="7"][b][i]and[/i][/b][/size] Victorious Alliance representatives have said that Article 2 expires after one month says something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Choson' timestamp='1300062346' post='2663639'] Sure did! Now where's that huge essay about NpO being the true victors here!? Your audience awaits! [/quote] Wrong Order. Edited March 14, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Somedude Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1300062203' post='2663632'] 6 days short, wow you sure got him!!! [img]http://forums.coj-cn.co.cc/Smileys/expanded/haw.gif[/img] [/quote] Well it's kind of hard to disprove assertions about the future until they've been proven wrong. Peace y'all! Shout out to my Polar targets! Your nukes were deliciously destructive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Congrats to all parties. These terms are much nicer then I would have imagined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheeKy Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Nice, peace! o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All the wright moves Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 these terms are very fair, more so than i expected, glad to see them. Good luck to all those involved in rebuilding. 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.