A Statement from Doomhouse

[Lusitan]

[quote name='William Bonney' timestamp='1302151245' post='2686005']
I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it, but hey maybe I'll come back in a few years and change my mind? Never know.
[/quote]

The fact you're today's Top poster clearly shows you do not care. Good job.

[Williambonney]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302152250' post='2686010']
The fact you're today's Top poster clearly shows you do not care. Good job.
[/quote]
Slow day here waiting for the clock to expire on Hiro. And I kinda like being mr popular for a change. Does it bother you so much though, not being the cool kid on the block?

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302122177' post='2685669']

It's funny because this statement is always presented by NPO representatives and their sympathizers without addressing any real point.

Trying to intimidate representatives into silence, another blatant NPO political atrocity. One which makes me glad that DH took the intiative to punish those responsible for this fascistic stance.
[/quote]


A) Look at who is running the WPE contest. The same one that runs all the other "worst" whatever contests.

B) You are making some of the worst and most ill informed posts these boards have ever produced.

C) Remove the stick from your own eye. One of the 1883 reasons DH has presented for attacking NPO was because they were saying mean stuff about poor little MK on these forums.

D) Honestly...the Emperor of the NPO doesn't run the NPO? If that's the case then DH should be very happy since one of the things they harp on is that the Gov of NPO never changes (although frankly it changes more often than most DH/PB govts).

You are just making a very rapid accumulation of posts that make you appear completely clueless as to the history and culture of Bob. It's honestly to the point that I believe you may be a reroll and are being intentionally clueless.

[Feldheim C]

*Walks on by with a lit cigar in his mouth before looking in the room*

You folks still at it? jeez, it's been a heck of a while since it started and the circles keep on going.

Anyway, I suspect I should get back to my nation, its glowin' green right now. I hope you all either quit bickering over the same stuff or at least find somewhere else to yell at each other. I'm out.

*walks off.*

[speakerwire]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1302153597' post='2686014']
You are just making a very rapid accumulation of posts that make you appear completely clueless as to the history and culture of Bob. It's honestly to the point that I believe you may be a reroll and are being intentionally clueless.
[/quote]

This assertion is preposterous.

[Feuersturm]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1302153597' post='2686014']
You are just making a very rapid accumulation of posts that make you appear completely clueless as to the history and culture of Bob. It's honestly to the point that I believe you may be a reroll and are being intentionally clueless.
[/quote]

I am glad I am not the only one that was thinking this.

[ControlVolume]

GOONs member here is my expert analysis of why your post is objectively wrong:
- It's stupid
- It sucks
- I hate it

[mrwuss]

Heh, I wonder how long this string will get.

[Borsche]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302143687' post='2685897']
Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur. If DH is unwilling to do this, then it is DH that wants the war to continue.
[/quote]

Why should Doomhouse have to compromise with the side they are beating?

[Lusitan]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302143687' post='2685897']
Obviously the terms are unacceptable and thus negotiations and compromising needs to occur. If DH is unwilling to do this, then it is DH that wants the war to continue.
[/quote]

Negotiation 101. When two parties deem the terms offered by the other part unacceptable the responsibility falls upon the party with less leverage to concede on their demands in a way that, while not compromising completely their position, makes it more favorable to be accepted by the party with greater leverage.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1302120217' post='2685646']
Ardus is the greatest agitator I have ever known.
[/quote]
That is often a skill possessed by honourless louts.

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302127964' post='2685726']
Here we go again. DH has offered terms. Ergo DH wants the war to end. NPO has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue.
[/quote]
NPO has offered terms. Therefore NPO wants the war to end. DH has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue.

[Borsche]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1302169667' post='2686098']
NPO has offered terms. Therefore NPO wants the war to end. DH has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue.
[/quote]

The onus is on the losing side to agree to terms. They pretty much have no leg to stand on when it comes to dictating terms.

[Hydro]

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302171820' post='2686104']
The onus is on the losing side to agree to terms. They pretty much have no leg to stand on when it comes to dictating terms.
[/quote]

FAN proved this not to be the case. Victory or defeat lies not in ones infraz or techz, but in ones spine.

edit: and after Karma and this, I'd be truly shocked if NPO backed down.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Hydro

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302171820' post='2686104']
The onus is on the losing side to agree to terms. They pretty much have no leg to stand on when it comes to dictating terms.
[/quote]
Tell that to Vox or FAN.

Also tell that to MK's nations from 20K to 60K. Winning?

Edited April 7, 2011 by Haflinger

[Letum]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1302148425' post='2685970']
The loser of the war should work towards a compromise and not just !@#$%* and moan about how they should get white peace because they don't like the CB or something silly.
[/quote]

First off, because I see this coming up often as propaganda, we have indeed been working with Doomhouse on things other than white peace.


Second, I disagree with the concept that the loser of a war has some kind of responsibility or onus or "should" try and get a compromise that meets the victor's requirements. And, at the same time, the loser is not entitled to a white peace, nor is the winner under some responsibility to find something acceptable to the loser.

A peace agreement is just that - an agreement. There is an exchange that takes place - the loser typically "gives something up" in order to "buy" a peace, and the winner "gives up" getting what they want via attacks, and gets it via terms instead. It makes sense therefore, that unless everything the winner wants is already fulfilled, they would not really be willing to give up attacking. And consequently, that does present many situations where negotiating a compromise is in the loser's best interest.

But there are also situations where it is not. Ultimately, it is a judgement call - whether what is being given up is worth the kind of peace that the loser gets. That does mean that situations of "white peace or no peace" genuinely exist - if the defender truly believes that the kind of peace-time environment being offered is not worth anything. The 2nd FAN war is a good example - given the feeling of betrayal and with all guarantees broken, there was not much reason to believe "peace" will offer anything more than the vulnerability of a temporary lull, and thus was not worth paying much for. There are also situations where what is "given up" is not measured in material terms. If someone feels unjustly persecuted, they might very well feel that accepting the enemy's conditions constitutes "giving up" part of their spine, and might rather keep on losing infra and tech instead. Certainly, there are many of us who might find that irrational, but frankly; who are we to judge whether somebody's concept of backbone or honour has a lower price-tag than their infra? In the end, that is simply their decision, and they have every right to make it.

The counterargument to this is, of course, that if the loser makes such a decision, they lose the right to complain about the winner keeping the war going. That is only partially correct. Whilst it certainly means that they do not have any entitlement to a more generous peace (and the majority of complaining is, unfortunately, of that nature), it does not completely absolve them of the capacity to criticize the winning side. After all, let us not forget that the winner is pursuing the war in order to fulfill some goal, and have the ability to drop it at any time. That involves a conscious choice to cause damage, and therefore it is judged on the merits of the reasons for doing said damage. The presence of an alternative can mitigate it to an extent, but ultimately any critic will have to make a judgement call of whether the winner's war aims "justify" continued damage. The result of that judgement can vary wildly by perspective.

But in the end, the "you're choosing to keep yourselves at war purposefully" line, whilst having some elements of logic, contains the unacceptable implication that the burden of responsibility is being shifted onto the losing side. Fighting happens because one person wants something that the other does not want to give them.

As mentioned in my first sentence of course, that aside is not meant to apply to the context of this specific situation, so I'd like to head off any partisan commentary about our senility by pointing out that none of what I just said is going on right now.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Letum

[Lord Velox]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1302119946' post='2685642']
When you say "our" do you mean just GOONS or DoomHouse as a whole? Because if you meant just GOONS then i
[/quote]
We comprise DoomHouse's Lower tier.
they aid us with their higher tier,giving us aid to defeat NPO and it's Vassals/meatshields however you wish to refer to that disorganized rabble.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302168760' post='2686094']
Negotiation 101. When two parties deem the terms offered by the other part unacceptable the responsibility falls upon the party with less leverage to concede on their demands in a way that, while not compromising completely their position, makes it more favorable to be accepted by the party with greater leverage.
[/quote]

Great way to not read what I posted.

[Borsche]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1302178320' post='2686128']
First off, because I see this coming up often as propaganda, we have indeed been working with Doomhouse on things other than white peace.


Second, I disagree with the concept that the loser of a war has some kind of responsibility or onus or "should" try and get a compromise that meets the victor's requirements. And, at the same time, the loser is not entitled to a white peace, nor is the winner under some responsibility to find something acceptable to the loser.

A peace agreement is just that - an agreement. There is an exchange that takes place - the loser typically "gives something up" in order to "buy" a peace, and the winner "gives up" getting what they want via attacks, and gets it via terms instead. It makes sense therefore, that unless everything the winner wants is already fulfilled, they would not really be willing to give up attacking. And consequently, that does present many situations where negotiating a compromise is in the loser's best interest.

But there are also situations where it is not. Ultimately, it is a judgement call - whether what is being given up is worth the kind of peace that the loser gets. That does mean that situations of "white peace or no peace" genuinely exist - if the defender truly believes that the kind of peace-time environment being offered is not worth anything. The 2nd FAN war is a good example - given the feeling of betrayal and with all guarantees broken, there was not much reason to believe "peace" will offer anything more than the vulnerability of a temporary lull, and thus was not worth paying much for. There are also situations where what is "given up" is not measured in material terms. If someone feels unjustly persecuted, they might very well feel that accepting the enemy's conditions constitutes "giving up" part of their spine, and might rather keep on losing infra and tech instead. Certainly, there are many of us who might find that irrational, but frankly; who are we to judge whether somebody's concept of backbone or honour has a lower price-tag than their infra? In the end, that is simply their decision, and they have every right to make it.

The counterargument to this is, of course, that if the loser makes such a decision, they lose the right to complain about the winner keeping the war going. That is only partially correct. Whilst it certainly means that they do not have any entitlement to a more generous peace (and the majority of complaining is, unfortunately, of that nature), it does not completely absolve them of the capacity to criticize the winning side. After all, let us not forget that the winner is pursuing the war in order to fulfill some goal, and have the ability to drop it at any time. That involves a conscious choice to cause damage, and therefore it is judged on the merits of the reasons for doing said damage. The presence of an alternative can mitigate it to an extent, but ultimately any critic will have to make a judgement call of whether the winner's war aims "justify" continued damage. The result of that judgement can vary wildly by perspective.

But in the end, the "you're choosing to keep yourselves at war purposefully" line, whilst having some elements of logic, contains the unacceptable implication that the burden of responsibility is being shifted onto the losing side. Fighting happens because one person wants something that the other does not want to give them.

As mentioned in my first sentence of course, that aside is not meant to apply to the context of this specific situation, so I'd like to head off any partisan commentary about our senility by pointing out that none of what I just said is going on right now.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[Banedon]

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1302168760' post='2686094']
Negotiation 101. When two parties deem the terms offered by the other part unacceptable the responsibility falls upon the party with less leverage to concede on their demands in a way that, while not compromising completely their position, makes it more favorable to be accepted by the party with greater leverage.
[/quote]

When the terms offered by one side to the other is "Die." there's not much room to negotiate.

In short, we'll still be fighting this war at Christmas.

[Borsche]

[quote name='Banedon' timestamp='1302189267' post='2686176']
When the terms offered by one side to the other is "Die." there's not much room to negotiate.

In short, we'll still be fighting this war at Christmas.
[/quote]

lmao at the idea that anyone in Legion is 'fighting'

[blueski]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1302131707' post='2685775']
Agreed. Lots weren't even aware that reps were being levied.
[/quote]
Who was that? I've only seen a couple people who didn't know we weren't asking reps of NPO. I find it hard to believe you've seen "lots" of Goons who don't know we charge reps to alliances that attack us.

[The OverSmug]

the offer isn't likely to change if you wait, and you are losing nation score as this goes on so... hey why not come out now?

[the rebel]

[quote name='The OverSmug' timestamp='1302190155' post='2686181']
the offer isn't likely to change if you wait, [b]and you are losing nation score as this goes on so...[/b] hey why not come out now?
[/quote]

So are FAN/NoR/MK the only exceptions are GOONS who are mainly tiny nations with little left to lose and Umbrella who are a top tier alliance, why stop the war now with terms that suit you, afterall your daddy MK told the world Everything.Must.Die, whats the change of heart?

[speakerwire]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1302191970' post='2686186']
So are FAN/NoR/MK the only exceptions are GOONS who are mainly tiny nations with little left to lose and Umbrella who are a top tier alliance, why stop the war now with terms that suit you, afterall your daddy MK told the world Everything.Must.Die, whats the change of heart?
[/quote]

Between this and the 'stop asking questions about stuff you don't understand' outburst earlier in the discussion, I'd say you're better off sitting this debate out.

Your simplistic attempts to goad others into breaking the rules of the venue are transparent and despicable.

Edited April 7, 2011 by speakerwire

[the rebel]

[quote name='speakerwire' timestamp='1302192174' post='2686188']
Between this and the 'stop asking questions about stuff you don't understand' outburst earlier in the discussion, I'd say you're better off sitting this debate out.

Your simplistic attempts to goad others into breaking the rules of the venue are transparent and despicable.
[/quote]

Rules? its a question i havent personally seen answered is why doomhouse are keen to end the war since they used such a motto for the war.

Maybe you should grow a thicker skin in regards to getting offended by such simple and inoffensive questions...

You remind me of nippy.

Edited April 8, 2011 by the rebel