Dagrr Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1300716005' post='2672212'] You're almost as cute as Alterego when you make things up. You wanted this as much as we did. Except, obviously, you wanted to win. You took every opportunity to !@#$ on us (every single official publication, refusing to help our allies with a rogue, editing our diplomats' posts, SirPaul's heir to Archon thing...). We did the same (Red Safari, closing your embassy...). Do us all a favour and don't pretend you wouldn't roll us given the chance. [/quote] Sir Paul...please. You are embarrassing yourself. How about we talk about your "rogue" hitting Cortath and then "screwing up" the stagger? I personally couldn't give two !@#$% about MK until you !@#$ all over our lawn. Even if we did want to, the world wouldn't have tolerated us hitting MK in the manner you hit us. Anyone who isn't in DH or PB knows that you want this war more than anyone on our side. If you didn't, the war would already be over. There's no reason for the "preemptive war" to continue. At least I don't have to listen to all the absurdity of NpO-VE being inseparably linked to this war anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1300716434' post='2672213'] MK has been on top for 2 years, when are you going to stop having NPO nightmares? [/quote] I -personnally- rarely care for NPO. As for MK as a whole, I guess we see NPO as the only "competent" force on the other side so that's why our attention is centered on them. But to say we're having nightmares about an "ebil Pacifican boogeyman" is a cute attempt at propaganda, my old friend. Albeit not very efficient. It's about as cliché as d34th's "your all hypocrite" line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Henry' timestamp='1300716992' post='2672218'] Sir Paul...please. You are embarrassing yourself. How about we talk about your "rogue" hitting Cortath and then "screwing up" the stagger? I personally couldn't give two !@#$% about MK until you !@#$ all over our lawn. Even if we did want to, the world wouldn't have tolerated us hitting MK in the manner you hit us. Anyone who isn't in DH or PB knows that you want this war more than anyone on our side. If you didn't, the war would already be over. There's no reason for the "preemptive war" to continue. At least I don't have to listen to all the absurdity of NpO-VE being inseparably linked to this war anymore. [/quote] Notice the "..." at the end of my list of "bad" things both sides did? Notice how SirPaul isn't the only "bad" thing I mentionned? I'm not even going to touch the rest of your so-called argument because it's totally disconnected from reality (as well as baseless) and since you're going to nitpick minor details and out right lie about everything, we're done here. Have fun in your fantasy world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagrr Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1300717299' post='2672222'] Notice the "..." at the end of my list of "bad" things both sides did? Notice how SirPaul isn't the only "bad" thing I mentionned? I'm not even going to touch the rest of your so-called argument because it's totally disconnected from reality (as well as baseless) and since you're going to nitpick minor details and out right lie about everything, we're done here. Have fun in your fantasy world. [/quote] Thinking Sir Paul's posts indicated that the NPO wanted to go to war with you is something new. I would love to hear why you think this. I believe we've already gone over everything else in the past 120 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1300655019' post='2671364'] As it has already been explained by better people than myself on the subject. If you hit us on an oA or dodge war while hiding from it. They alliances will most likely be charged reps. (If I'm wrong it will be corrected I'm sure) [/quote] Consider yourself corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1300674866' post='2671782'] I was just thinking that actually but stopped short of making it an actual point. Since you bring it up, yes, "we want white peace" does not count as a valid counter offer to most situations. The time for white peace in this particular war is in my opinion, long gone. There is frequently a large disconnect here due to the defeated alliances failing to grasp the difference between what they want and what they can have. [/quote] Would the reasonableness of a peace offer then depend on whether the defeated party "can" have it? Because what you "can have" is derived from the victor's power and goals, and would essentially be defined from the victor's perspective of what ludicrous means. Another way of saying that might makes right. Of course, it would be impractical to suggest a peace that is so far removed from the victor's goals as to make rejection a certainty. But that in itself does not make it unreasonable. If it did, then I am sure you can see the massive slippery slope that would occur. A victor could simply have an extreme goal such as reducing an entire alliance to ZT, and any counter-offer that does not come close enough to that would be something that the defeated party cannot have. In the end, since most terms, and especially the ones here, are done in the name of national interest rather than some kind of justice, it is very hard to come up with some objective way of calling one of them reasonable. Where would you even begin? A failure to reach peace can be as simple as an irrevocable disconnect between war goals. And certainly, alliances are not automatically entitled to white peace, but neither is a victor entitled to enforcing terms that fulfill their war goals. Ultimately, terms are an extension of war-time damage, and are therefore in line with the overall amount of damage a victor wants to cause. That is why the idea that someone who fails to "negotiate" is keeping themselves purposely at war can be so unfair - if the victor sets out to do a certain level of damage, be it in war or terms, then the responsibility for that lies with them, and the onus is not on the defender to fulfill the victor's goals. The victor is certainly not "forced" to damage the other party - they do so for their national interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300715266' post='2672208'] that was a mistake on my part, forgot bout the whole "no reps, just full-out war" thing...then again, i still go back to my point that as a "peripheral" war that many of you claimed this war against NPO was, it should have ended soon after the NpO front closed....unless you want this to turn into a GRE/IRON dispute i guess? how much time did it take to pass for nuke first strike to become the norm then? (i know it was long before i joined Bob) and was it because the people in power saw that it was actually fine or that every other alliance decided to authorize it one day [/quote] Although we view the fronts as being connected there's nonetheless a desire for the war to end on our terms just as it began on them. As for first-strike nuking, I'd say it was viewed as being acceptable around the time of the noCB War (my recollection is not precise however), mainly because by that general time nukes were no longer rare, taboo weapons (given the quantity possessed by Planet Bob's denizens and given the frequency of their use). *edited for clarity Edited March 21, 2011 by SirWilliam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Henry' timestamp='1300717562' post='2672227'] Thinking Sir Paul's posts indicated that the NPO wanted to go to war with you is something new. I would love to hear why you think this. I believe we've already gone over everything else in the past 120 pages. [/quote] I didn't say it was THE reason but it clearly indicates less than a good will from Pacifica towards the Kingdom. Are you saying that SirPaul is a lone MK hater in NPO and that the rest of you guys had nothing but love and respect for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1300718300' post='2672233'] Although we view the fronts as being connected there's nonetheless a desire for the war to end on our terms just as it began on them. As for first-strike nuking, I'd say it was viewed as being acceptable around the time of the noCB War (my recollection is not precise however), mainly because by that general time nukes were no longer rare, taboo weapons (given the quantity possessed by Planet Bob's denizens and given the frequency of their use). *edited for clarity [/quote] Sounds accurate. MHA was not weapons free in WotC when engaged with Genesis, Nueva Vida and UBD. Shortly after that it became more of a norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1300717815' post='2672230'] Consider yourself corrected. [/quote] Is that all you have to add on the subject? Or do you prefer to not elaborate on your extensive reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles the Great Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Sooo........... a clarification please. Pre-emptive striking is ok as long as you win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300715266' post='2672208'] that was a mistake on my part, forgot bout the whole "no reps, just full-out war" thing...then again, i still go back to my point that as a "peripheral" war that many of you claimed this war against NPO was, it should have ended soon after the NpO front closed....unless you want this to turn into a GRE/IRON dispute i guess? how much time did it take to pass for nuke first strike to become the norm then? (i know it was long before i joined Bob) and was it because the people in power saw that it was actually fine or that every other alliance decided to authorize it one day [/quote]Preventative war should never become the norm, because that would represent a total annihilation of politics as we know it. And you're right, it should have closed when VE-Polaris closed, but it hasn't on account of ridiculous demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1300716005' post='2672212'] You're almost as cute as Alterego when you make things up. You wanted this as much as we did. Except, obviously, you wanted to win. You took every opportunity to !@#$ on us (every single official publication, refusing to help our allies with a rogue, editing our diplomats' posts, SirPaul's heir to Archon thing...). We did the same (Red Safari, closing your embassy...). Do us all a favour and don't pretend you wouldn't roll us given the chance. [/quote] The entire premise of your CB is lies or incompetent and paranoid leadership. You seem to have missed the ever evolving reason/s for DH going to war against NPO. Its one thing wanting a fight as you claim to have wanted but thats not what you are looking for now. You got your fight now you want NPO to be permanently crippled as an alliance just to amuse your short attention span membership. If you dont give them what they want you will turn on yourselves as Stormsend said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1300691884' post='2672028'] Try replying to what I actually wrote rather than just yelling the same inane crap you have been this whole time. OOC: yes, I do think it is bad. I wouldn't care if it was VE, GOONS, NSO, MK, ODN or any other alliance. If there is a war, and the only tactic employed is to hide a large number of your nations in peace mode with the objective of literally doing nothing and waiting for your opponent to get bored, then it is a major problem. People play this game for entertainment, and a large number of those people enjoy wars. When a war is nothing more than a staring contest it turns an already boring war system into the most pointless and boring game in existence. /OOC The fact that some of you can't seem to realise that we have major issues with the tactic itself, and not those using it, isn't surprising considering the staggering intellects showcased here [/quote] Ok, i get and understand your point. Esp since GOONs middle tier is almost all in Peace Mode. It does make finding targets very difficult and frustrating. And since the vast majority of them(1 or 2 exceptions) have been in peace mode for well over a week, going on 2 weeks (I have been watching and trying to find a target since then) Does this mean you are ordering them out as well?? I understand why they staying in Peace mode in that range...we own the middle ground...just like you own the high ground. We haven't said anything else, why do you think we aren't fighting in the high ground?? You have a very big advantage over us there, so we have decieded to fight the war on ground of OUR choosing, not your choosing. If each individual nation in TPF had their way, we might have 1 or 2 who would stay in peace mode. As it is they are staying there at the order of our EOL due to strategic reasons. They might not like it, but they are doing it. (I didn't like it at all when I started out there, and chaffed at the bit until I was allowed out, but I did it) Thing is, just because you don't like the tactic, doesn't mean it isn't valid. Don't be butthurt because we aren't fighting this war to YOUR strengths. We are in it for the long haul, buckle up and go for a ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1300715686' post='2672211'] NPO was never a peripheral front of the conflict. There were 3 main fronts if I recall correctly: VE-NpO, DH-NPO and AZTEC-Sparta/MHA [/quote] then please, do tell why multiple Umbrella/GOONS/MK people have argued the fact that it is the same war time and time again....mainly when people on the NPO front argued that the wars were not connected following peace terms on the NpO side? ....probly worded that confusingly so i'll give it another shot....alliance A declares on alliance B (who's on NpO's side) Alliance B agrees peace/terms that require them to stay out of the NpO/VE conflict and the NPO/DH conflict....people on NPO's side state that the two wars are not related while people in DH state that they are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1300719901' post='2672247'] Ok, i get and understand your point. Esp since GOONs middle tier is almost all in Peace Mode. It does make finding targets very difficult and frustrating. [b]And since the vast majority of them(1 or 2 exceptions) have been in peace mode for well over a week, going on 2 weeks (I have been watching and trying to find a target since then) Does this mean you are ordering them out as well??[/b] I understand why they staying in Peace mode in that range...we own the middle ground...just like you own the high ground. We haven't said anything else, why do you think we aren't fighting in the high ground?? You have a very big advantage over us there, so we have decieded to fight the war on ground of OUR choosing, not your choosing. If each individual nation in TPF had their way, we might have 1 or 2 who would stay in peace mode. As it is they are staying there at the order of our EOL due to strategic reasons. They might not like it, but they are doing it. (I didn't like it at all when I started out there, and chaffed at the bit until I was allowed out, but I did it) Thing is, just because you don't like the tactic, doesn't mean it isn't valid. Don't be butthurt because we aren't fighting this war to YOUR strengths. We are in it for the long haul, buckle up and go for a ride. [/quote] How do you figure that one out when 1.) I ZI'd you and 2). I have you in anarchy? And 3.) you have no money. Or are you meaning a time pre fighting myself? Edited March 21, 2011 by Hiro Nakara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='SirWilliam' timestamp='1300718300' post='2672233'] Although we view the fronts as being connected there's nonetheless a desire for the war to end on our terms just as it began on them. As for first-strike nuking, I'd say it was viewed as being acceptable around the time of the noCB War (my recollection is not precise however), mainly because by that general time nukes were no longer rare, taboo weapons (given the quantity possessed by Planet Bob's denizens and given the frequency of their use). *edited for clarity [/quote] which was the NoCB war again? cant find it on the wiki....also i take it's safe to assume not all alliances followed the masses and gave a nuclear greenlight? hell i know we still have that in our charter unless it's cleared as necessary by the Captain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1300719476' post='2672240'] Is that all you have to add on the subject? Or do you prefer to not elaborate on your extensive reply? [/quote] What else is there to say? You asked to be corrected if you were wrong and I paid you that honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300719783' post='2672246'] The entire premise of your CB is lies or incompetent and paranoid leadership. You seem to have missed the ever evolving reason/s for DH going to war against NPO. Its one thing wanting a fight as you claim to have wanted but thats not what you are looking for now. You got your fight now you want NPO to be permanently crippled as an alliance just to amuse your short attention span membership. If you dont give them what they want you will turn on yourselves as Stormsend said. [/quote] There are many reasons for this war to have happened. They have been listed many many times by many many different people. You may not like them but that's a different story. You're either dumber than I thought or doing this on purpose. I'm leaning towards both, to be honest. As for us destroying each other, I thought that was what you wanted? EDIT: it seems you have trouble understanding what people say even when they talk. 16:21 <Stormsend2> I didn't say we'd turn on ourselves. 16:21 <Stormsend2> I said we'd attack each other. No malice in it whatsoever. Edited March 21, 2011 by potato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1300718353' post='2672234'] I didn't say it was THE reason but it clearly indicates less than a good will from Pacifica towards the Kingdom. Are you saying that SirPaul is a lone MK hater in NPO and that the rest of you guys had nothing but love and respect for us? [/quote] If the Kingdom desired a greater amount of "good will", then extorting our allies, mass raiding our team, and de-facto encouraging nuclear rogues is not the best way to get it. Unless of course, you were expecting a war because you kept trying to provoke one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1300720362' post='2672251'] What else is there to say? You asked to be corrected if you were wrong and I paid you that honor. [/quote] Explaining why I'm wrong would be a good start. Edited March 21, 2011 by Hiro Nakara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of the Dance Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 I am officially changing my favourite poster to Kilkenny. Just because he is so outrageous and exactly as HN describes. Greatest shot in foot ever. I salute you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1300720406' post='2672254'] Explaining why I'm wrong would be a good start. [/quote] Uh, because reps are being demanded of all alliances, no matter what their mode of entry was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300691919' post='2672030'] Well alliances that attacked NPO don't like NPO. That's a given, but it wasn't the main reason they were attacked two months ago. Thing is, we'd be in the same exact situation if NPO had entered on day two unless Polar insisted on not peacing out or something. [/quote] Actually no we wouldn't. The big issue that NPO and the rest of us have with the "terms" you and offered (you being DH as a whole) is the fact that you pre-emptively attacked them because of fear/paranoia/opportunity...etc, take your pick. If we had gone in attacking in defense of STA (for example) and NPO came in supporting us, the situation would be different, both in our eyes and yours. Given that we would have been attacking someone (albeit on a D clause) we would have had our obligation to attack go away when STA reached peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1300720500' post='2672257'] Uh, because reps are being demanded of all alliances, no matter what their mode of entry was. [/quote] So all that entered on a MDP and has chose to fight are being asked for reps? Have invicta been charged reps? Have invicta brought their top tier out to fight? Edited March 21, 2011 by Hiro Nakara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts