A Statement from Doomhouse

[HeroofTime55]

Having been informed of something I was entirely unaware of, it's clear that my posts were far beyond "out of line." I shall be getting back to this shortly.

[montypython]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1300341663' post='2667243']
You'll note, "some on your side have said". I didn't claim you specifically stated as such. Your second sentence doesn't have a coherent thought to address so I'll skip it. I would however appreciate you posting the logs which you cite as provocation worthy of unending war or destruction of complete upper tier.

I didn't start this war, you guys did. I think you'd have a hard time finding more than a sentence or two said about umbrella from me in the last year before you attacked our MADP partner.

So raising questions is worthy of getting attacked again? Did I take this statement wrong? Please address it if I did and what you actually meant.
[/quote]
So by stating that you skipped my second sentence, you're stating that you don't care what the members of your alliance think about the war. I made up the part about there being logs, that was stated in humor. But I could probably get some logs of some NPO friends calling me names, and that would be sufficient for the cause. Although, I also stated that the reasoning for this war isn't understood by many "on your side" because those who understand it aren't willing to take some imaginary risk by telling their alliance our side of the story. You didn't start this war? Oh, my bad, I should have more clearly stated, here: "mhawk didn't start this war." Now, I wouldn't go as far as to state that raising questions is a worthy reason to be attacked, I simply stated that the tone of your statements shows that you have a negative attitude towards the peace which could be so easily accomplished.

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1300342197' post='2667283']
No, you're incorrect! (seriously, that's about as much of a response as I can get out of this since you didn't really say anything....)
[/quote]
But I did, as I more clearly stated above.

Edited March 17, 2011 by montypython

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300342231' post='2667286']
Having been informed of something I was entirely unaware of, it's clear that my posts were far beyond "out of line." I shall be getting back to this shortly.
[/quote]

May the self-inflicted butt kicking commence.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='The Warrior' timestamp='1300342143' post='2667277']
I hope that you are sorely disappointed then.

Your word isn't worth anything to Pacifica at this point. Karma was largely believed to be the war which paid the hegemony back for their tyranny, and it served it's purpose. You managed to keep the hegemonic lords locked in reparation payments for over a year and now that they have rebuilt and failed to issue an apology you have decided to strike them.

If after one month of fighting, DH feels although they have not done enough damage to Pacifica, you will only continue to destroy them or impose reps again. It seems like an asinine thing to do for Pacifica to leave pm to suit your desires when there is no guarantee that your month of war is enough to end this.
[/quote]
Karma did nothing. It was a grudge war. The rhetoric was mostly propaganda. Hell, most of the Karma alliances were in the Hegemony until the very end...

Edited March 17, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg

[D34th]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300341993' post='2667271']
I was hoping it wouldn't come across as such.

[ooc]I am unaware of why his words are as they are, but I'm working on the assumption he is struggling with an iTouch or something. Please correct me if I am mistaken, I fear O may be out of the loop on this one.[/ooc]
[/quote]

You never know about you are talking, make a favor for us and stop posting. I would accept(as I already did) comments about how my english is horrible from everyone except from you, who don't even know how to interpret a surrender term.

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1300341231' post='2667221']
Is this offer only for NPO or the entire side that's fighting on the front?
[/quote]

No. Only to NPO and 'maybe' Legion, as I recall correctly. CoJ's is somewhere in the arena of 400-500m, ours unofficially is less, but there won't be many alliances leaving this front without reps.

Funny enough, it'll turn out to be DT and CoJ who'd get the harshest reps

[Chief Savage Man]

[quote name='Minilla Island' timestamp='1300342035' post='2667273']
Many Alliances still use that strategy because it is good sense to have strong nations to help in rebuilding the weak. So, is it really "outdated"? Or, is it "outdated" because it does not allow you the opportunity to attack the larger nations, which will hinder the rebuilding process. I mean, let's be honest here.
[/quote]

It is better sense to have an alliance built of strong prepared nations who can rebuild themselves. The warchest strategy was pioneered by Gramlins or TOP (I don't remember to be honest) in 2007 and it has been widely accepted for years. It's outdated because it doesn't work as well as having big enough warchests. Also I'm not surprised to see a UINE member defend the idea of banking nations.

[Ragashingo]

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' timestamp='1300342164' post='2667278']
It's completely natural for the victor to want to have something to show for their victory, and this is an effort to move away from lengthy and economically damaging terms to something a bit more lighthearted, and certainly less time-consuming. The fact that you're complaining about something that damages nothing but Schattenmann's over-inflated ego astounds me.
[/quote]

Setting back an alliance many months due to the damage of the war itself isn't enough? It's not about ego. It's about imposing retarded ooc terms on an alliance for in world actions. My stance has always been for white peace, for years and years. And if you really feel the need to harm an alliance further after defeating them at least keep your greed to in world actions. These kinds of demands you're defending cross the line that shouldn't be crossed.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Ragashingo

[mhawk]

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300342286' post='2667288']
So by stating that you skipped my second sentence, you're stating that you don't care what the members of your alliance think about the war. I made up the part about there being logs, that was stated in humor. But I could probably get some logs of some NPO friends calling me names, and that would be sufficient for the cause. Although, I also stated that the reasoning for this war isn't understood by many "on your side" because those who understand it aren't willing to take some imaginary risk by telling their alliance our side of the story. You didn't start this war? Oh, my bad, I should have more clearly stated, here: "mhawk didn't start this war." Now, I wouldn't go as far as to state that raising questions is a worthy reason to be attacked, I simply stated that the tone of your statements shows that you have a negative attitude towards the peace which could be so easily accomplished.


But I did, as I more clearly stated above.
[/quote]
"If you want to state things like, DH is "erasing years of work from hundreds of players," then you should consider why these rulers of nations would state as their reasons for ruling their respective nations."

You are trying to rationalize the damage you wish to inflict on players, by implying it will be fun? For whom? If that is the case then surely whatever caused you guys to become upset in the first place can be rationalized as "fun" from one side or another.

I could ask umbrella to surrender to TPF. That could also be so easily accomplished... Just a few sigs and a post, everything is over right? Of course that won't happen the same way stating these terms could easily be executed if the other party just yields completely to your demands. It's really a rather weak argument you've created to try to justify your alliance's actions.

[Hydro]

[size="2"]What a joke. It's just Karma all over again.

[color="#1C2837"][quote]The end of terms that cripple alliances forever[/quote][/color]

[color="#1C2837"]LOL ok then. You say this right after demanding that one of NPO's terms of surrender be to exit peace mode and get raped for a month. Do you actually expect people to believe this tripe?[/color][/size]

Edited March 17, 2011 by Hydro

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1300342511' post='2667296']
It is better sense to have an alliance built of strong prepared nations who can rebuild themselves. The warchest strategy was pioneered by Gramlins or TOP (I don't remember to be honest) in 2007 and it has been widely accepted for years. It's outdated because it doesn't work as well as having big enough warchests. Also I'm not surprised to see a UINE member defend the idea of banking nations.
[/quote]
I guess that's why Umbrella has had to send over $5 billion to MK and GOONS.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1300342231' post='2667286']
Having been informed of something I was entirely unaware of, it's clear that my posts were far beyond "out of line." I shall be getting back to this shortly.
[/quote]
Yeah, it is amazing what you miss when you go inactive.

I'm out.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Gandroff' timestamp='1300341794' post='2667258']
Last I checked 70(Over the entire alliance) wasn't a good majority.

I'll also echo Schattenmann here.
[/quote]

I said a good majority of their [i]upper tier[/i]. Read closer. Many of those had been sent into peace mode as precautionary measures as the Polar-VE war broke out and they've all have yet to see battle during this year.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1300342344' post='2667290']
May the self-inflicted butt kicking commence.
[/quote]
Not before a speedy attempt to rectify this terrible wrong I've committed, though I know it is probably yet too little.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100003

And with that, I'm going to bed. I feel beyond terrible at what I just said.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1300342770' post='2667307']
I guess that's why Umbrella has had to send over $5 billion to MK and GOONS.
[/quote]

Warchests aren't needed at low levels precisely because aid drops can easily prop a nation up. I know you're smarter than this, Schatt.

[Schattenmann]

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1300342878' post='2667313']
Warchests aren't needed at low levels precisely because aid drops can easily prop a nation up. I know you're smarter than this, Schatt.
[/quote]
Your man Chief is saying that bankers are not needed in the modern era because of huge warchests, not me. Now you're saying that small nations do need bankers. You two chat it up and compare talking points, I'll be over here waiting for you (edit: actually no I won't, let me know what you decided when I wake up. Goodnight Planet Bob, goodnight moon, goodnight mushroom, goodnight goon).

Edited March 17, 2011 by Schattenmann

[montypython]

[quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1300342732' post='2667304']
"If you want to state things like, DH is "erasing years of work from hundreds of players," then you should consider why these rulers of nations would state as their reasons for ruling their respective nations."

You are trying to rationalize the damage you wish to inflict on players, by implying it will be fun? For whom? If that is the case then surely whatever caused you guys to become upset in the first place can be rationalized as "fun" from one side or another.

I could ask umbrella to surrender to TPF. That could also be so easily accomplished... Just a few sigs and a post, everything is over right? Of course that won't happen the same way stating these terms could easily be executed if the other party just yields completely to your demands. It's really a rather weak argument you've created to try to justify your alliance's actions.
[/quote]
I'm only implying my own feelings that I, personally, would rather fight and lose, than sit in PM and have no respect shown to me. And yes, you could ask Umbrella to surrender to TPF, but the difference is that we are winning the fight, thus giving us the key bargaining chip in peace talks. I would also like to state that you completely skipped the whole bit about explaining our reasons for declaration to the uneducated masses.

[AAAAAAAAAAGGGG]

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1300342954' post='2667314']
Your man Chief is saying that bankers are not needed in the modern era because of huge warchests, not me. Now you're saying that small nations do need bankers. You two chat it up and compare talking points, I'll be over here waiting for you.
[/quote]

In this modern day and age, you can have a huge warchest to fight with [i]and[/i] aid small nations! Novel concept, right?

Edited March 17, 2011 by AAAAAAAAAAGGGG

[Maelstrom Vortex]

As a member of the Pacifican Military.. I must say this..

We will not be exposing the Pacifican Federal Reserve system to the exploitation of your crooks. That's what we, the soldiers, fight and die to protect. We may as well not be fighting if we let you steal our future from us.

My response to your terms, more succinctly, is "Nuts".

Edited March 17, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Ardus]

[quote name='Hydro' timestamp='1300342733' post='2667305']
[size="2"]What a joke. It's just Karma all over again.

[color="#1C2837"][/color]

[color="#1C2837"]LOL ok then. You say this right after demanding that one of NPO's terms of surrender be to exit peace mode and get raped for a month. Do you actually expect people to believe this tripe?[/color][/size]
[/quote]
A month of war followed by termless surrender is far less painful than gargantuan reps that take months and months to pay off.

[mhawk]

[quote name='montypython' timestamp='1300343057' post='2667320']
I'm only implying my own feelings that I, personally, would rather fight and lose, than sit in PM and have no respect shown to me. And yes, you could ask Umbrella to surrender to TPF, but the difference is that we are winning the fight, thus giving us the key bargaining chip in peace talks. I would also like to state that you completely skipped the whole bit about explaining our reasons for declaration to the uneducated masses.
[/quote]
Your reason for declaring as per Archon's DoW? or Roquentin's blog? Or the everything must die thread?

[Hydro]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300343387' post='2667328']
A month of war followed by termless surrender is far less painful than gargantuan reps that take months and months to pay off.
[/quote]

Try no reps+no war to the defending party that you have no CB on? Jesus, it's like you people actually think you have the moral high ground here which is hilariously ironic given that you're fighting NPO.

[Quinoa Rex]

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1300342578' post='2667301']
Setting back an alliance many months due to the damage of the war itself isn't enough? It's not about ego. It's about imposing retarded ooc terms on an alliance for in world actions. My stance has always been for white peace, for years and years. And if you really feel the need to harm an alliance further after defeating them at least keep your greed to in world actions. These kinds of demands you're defending cross the line that shouldn't be crossed.
[/quote]
We're asking an alliance to pen a work about the alliances that have triumphed over theirs. It's just as valid to want to hear a saga detailing my glorious exploits and be done with it instead of taking forever to organise payment. I don't see how that's reprehensible at all unless they're illiterate in the nations comprising the Cult of Justitia, which is quite evidently not the case.

[Ryan Greenberg]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300343387' post='2667328']
A month of war followed by termless surrender is far less painful than gargantuan reps that take months and months to pay off.
[/quote]
What makes you think NPO should listen to your ultimatums?

[TrotskysRevenge]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1300341115' post='2667210']
This is pretty hilarious. NPO suddenly finds the same terms they imposed on FAN mean and terrible. Whoever thought these up needs a pay raise, truly, because you're actually forcing NPO to say their actions were wrong, even if it's not directly.
[/quote]

A day lat and a dolar short. We did that, in privat to FAN and to a hevily-trold thred on the OWF abot a wek or so ago.

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' timestamp='1300341063' post='2667207']
[color="#0000FF"]I'm not saying the war is justified. I don't believe it is justified. But I am pretty sure I know what they want. They want to beat you down, get their kicks, and move on.

They're in no position to fight an extended war anyway. Once they beat down your big nations, they won't have nearly enough people to cope with the entire NPO and its allies. Not without a constant outflow of cash to GOONS and MK's lower tier. Money which they can't use to buy tech. So yes, as odd as it may sound, I'd trust them when they say that they just want NPO out of peace mode so they can't beat you down.

It isn't like they've been subtle about their intentions from the start. If you can get past the spin, from both sides, that is.[/color]
[/quote]

Whil I belev you ar sincer in yor words, I dont belev them becus ther DOW talkd abot things such as the NPO dus not deserv to exist, the NPO must be destrod befor it becoms a powr agan and I think disbanmt was in ther as wel. DH is fuly capabl of continung to atak us aftr top ter banks are taken out of PM for as long as they want, just as they wer fuly capabl of basng the inishul atak basd on the "fak" that NPO was "workng" with Polr to entr the war on ther behaf. (The qalite of ther intel is slipng; ges spis arnt as gud as they usd to be).

Ardus, NPO has around 563 nashuns. 50-60 nashuns as banks are a bit ovr 10%, not rely that hih of a percetg.